Re: RFC: Final version of kernel team's firmware GR proposal, coined to be consensual to all those of good faith involved in the current discussion.
Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Mmm, i think it is important to mention the fact that they are hexdumps, since
> all of them are, no ?
If all of them are, then mention it if you like, but why is it important
what form the binaries are in?
> Why should we delete those. Since in these age of dropping rationales from the
> proposal, it is important to give a bit of context too. I would like to keep
> these points.
It increases the amount of research prospective supporters should do. Is it
important that people agree on the reasons for an action, rather than just
agreeing on the action?
> > > 4. We allow inclusion of such firmware into Debian Etch, even if their license
> > > does not normally allow modification, as long as we are legally allowed to
> > > distribute them.
> > Where 'such' = 'problematic' and apparently not limited to those *in* the
> Yes, those we are speaking about in clause 3. Do you have a suggestion for
> better wording ?
> > upstream kernel. I think it should be limited to the upstream kernel.
> Point 6. clearly restricts the firmware involved to those in the debian kernel
> package and associated .udebs. I take it you fear that the kernel team will
> add additional not-kernel-related firmware binaries to the debian kernel
> package ?
No, I fear that the kernel team may add additional firmware binaries not in
the upstream kernel, especially as I thought some poster claimed they
already did in the past.
> What about saying this :
> 3. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every bit out;
> for this reason, we will treat removal of problematic firmware as a
> best-effort process, and in no case add additional problematic material
> to the upstream released kernel tarball.
I think that would cover this case in points 4-6 well, yes.
> > > 5. We further note that some of these firmware do not have individual license,
> > > and thus implicitly fall under the generic linux kernel GPL license.
> > Unless we know that its copyright holder is a Linux copyright holder,
> > I can't see how its licensing is thus implied just by being there.
> The linux kernel tarball has a GPL licensing statement in the root of the
> tree. Any file not explicitly given an individual license is thus under the
> GPL implicitly.
Are you sure of that? The GPL instructs: 'each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.'
> Furthermore, those firmware hexdump are usually (well, in the cases i
> checked), found inside files, which themselves have a GPL copyright statement
> at the top, and thus their full content is licensed under the GPL.
That's a different, less problematic case.
> may wish is better, yes, changing that.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct