Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 01:38:16PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every
> >> | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless
> >> | firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as
> >> | long as it is necessary for installation (like all udebs), and
> >> | firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch,
> >> | as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the firmware is
> >> | distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG.
> >> `----
> > Manoj, i want a clarification of what this actually means for :
> > 1) firmware like the tg3 one, which is licenced under a 'permision to
> > distribute under an hexa dump or equivalent format' but no further
> > modification rights. This is clearly DFSG non-free, so tg3 has to go.
> Here, the upstream license seems to be non-free.
> > 2) firmware under the GPL, but with missing source. The GPL is free, but
> > the absence of source code for the firmware blobs makes it a violation of
> > the GPL, and thus undistributable.
> Here, the upstream license is "GPL", which complies with the DFSG, and
> the driver is therefore included if we are "legally allowed to do so".
> The GPL *does* grant us the right to distribute binaries without source.
The GPL does ? I remember that it has some words saying : if any of the above
clauses cannot be fullfilled, the above granted permissons are void or
soemthing such, thus not allowing us to distribute them as per the GPL. There
is no licence at all left then, and we fall under standard copyright law,
which means non-distributable.