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

Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:09:50PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> +  |     We allow inclusion into etch even if the way we distribute the
> +  |     firmware leads to a violation of the license,

Uh, no we won't.

There are claims that the GPL, when applied to "sourceless" firmware,
doesn't provide permission to redistribute because there's presumably a
"more preferred" version of the source in existance somewhere. That's
an *argument* that a violation may exist, not proof that one does. If
that argument were accepted by Debian, we would not be distributing
it no matter what GRs there might be, right up to the DFSG and Social
Contract being entirely scrapped -- it would be *illegal* to distribute
those works, both for us, for Red Hat, for kernel.org and just about
everyone else.

It's plausible we might decide not to risk even the possibility of
violating the license by distributing that stuff (even in non-free) even
though Red Hat or others are willing to, and it's also plausible that we
might decide as a matter of policy that while we are able to distribute
it, that it doesn't meet our standards for "main"; but we certainly won't
decide that it's a violation of the license to distribute it, but hey,
we'll distribute it anyway.

IMO, of course, but...

>                                                         if the current
> +  |     license does not allow modification, or if there is no source
> +  |     available. However, we still require that the firmware has a
> +  |     license that, in principle, allows distribution (possibly under
> +  |     conditions we currently cannot fully meet).
> What do you think?

Hey, you asked ;)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: