Re: Call for votes (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:36:37AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:02:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > As I mentioned previously, I don't think point 3. here is the compromise I
> > would like to see. "Without further conditions" is so broad that it seems
> > to even *require* us to include firmware in main that lacks any sort of
> > proper distribution license.
>
> The intention is indeed to release the kernel as-is for Etch, postponing
> the work which needs to be done in contacting vendors and upstream to
> get relicensings and source disclosures until after the release.
>
> > And indeed, the upload of a completely
> > unpruned 2.6.18 package to unstable suggests that this is not an accident of
> > wording, but the actual view of the present kernel team.
>
> It is at least my actual view, the others should speak for themself.
>
> We will discuss this issue on the kernel-team meeting next Saturday, how we
> should handle the re-added firmwares, and seek a workable compromise.
>
> Dropping for example the apparently useless dgrs driver could be an
> option, or drop the drivers not needed for installation, which means
> basically one driver (acenic) from the originally pruned ones would be
> the non-free regression in comparison with the sarge kernels.
That said, it seems that the acenic sources are available somewhere, as they
are mentioned on the wiki page. Maybe we should get hand on them.
The only problem is with the licence (can only be used with the acenic
driver), which makes them non-free, but as the copyright holder kind of
dissapeared there is not much we can do about this.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: