On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:05:57AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > 5. We further note that some of these firmware do not have proper license, > Ah, no, i forgot to change this to what Manoj suggested this morning : > We further note that some of these firmware do not have individual license, > and thus implicitly fall under the the generic linux kernel GPL license. > We then continue by saying that we will distribute them as part of etch, and > investigate afterward, in the meanwhile urge the vendors to do the right thing ? Oh right, sorry, that's completely different to what I thought you were saying. > So, given the word modification above, is that not plainly what we say ? Yup. My only comment is that adding that clause to the GR will presumably delay us by another week, for no real benefit that I can see. As long as we're not trying to do something that we're simultaneously claiming is illegal, I'm happy with pretty much anything. I presume various folks won't agree with the "license does not normally allow modification" part (as in, not just sourceless but definitively non-free stuff) clause, though -- that's what Manoj proposed his amendment to exclude, aiui. Steve raised his GR for this issue on the 22nd August; it's now the 6th of September, and it'll be at least the 15th of October. Another week's delay will mean we've spent two months trying to work out the right phrasing for allowing us to leave a couple of drivers in the kernel for now, that we're immediately going to work on removing as soon as etch is out. Do we really not have better things to do with our time? Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature