[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: late for party (was Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware)

Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> posted from wonderland.linux.it:
> No, it's because they really do not believe this to be a problem, like
> everybody else but a few people polluting debian-legal.

I note that several of those supporting the current source code
requirement for main don't post much to debian-legal (and certainly don't
pollute it with claims like "the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means
that there is no point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit"
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/08/msg00106.html ).

[... ldoolitt@recycle.lbl.gov wrote: ]
> >http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/08/msg00166.html
> >> >  I think we should learn from OpenBSD on this front.
> >> I agree. Indeed, the OpenBSD project not only distributes
> >> sourceless firmwares, but also sourceless firmwares with a
> >> license which forbids modifications and reverse engineering.
> >Care to back up that statement?  It runs 180 degrees counter
> >to my understanding of OpenBSD.
> Feel free to dig in the OpenBSD mailing lists archives if you care.

Searching OpenBSD mailing list archives for mails matching both keywords
firmware and source found nothing.  Are you sure it's in there?

My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: