Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
Okay. Since I never read anybody saying it this clearly (in other
words, contradicting Sven when he asserted that the claims were true), I
wasn't aware of that.
It seems to me as if we might need to phrase the vote in a way that also
makes clear which interpretation we follow.
>> 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?
That would make, e.g.:
+ | firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch.
+ | We allow inclusion into etch even if the current license does
+ | not allow modification, or if there are hints that there exists
+ | a form more suited for modification than the binary form
+ | included in the kernel. However, we still require that the
+ | firmware has a license that allows distribution.
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)