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

Re: [PROPOSAL] Final consensual proposal for the problematic firmware issue in the linux kernel sources.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:16:04 +0200, Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> said: 

> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 08:42:41AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:17:56 +0200, Sven Luther
>> <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> said:
>> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 03:57:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> > Probably, but then choice 1. of the ballot currently under
>> >> > vote should have had 3:1 supermajority also, which added to
>> >> > misleading wording of the short title compared to the actual
>> >> > content of the proposal, cast some serious doubt as to the
>> >> > validity of the vote being currently held.
>> >> 
>> >> Nope. Choice 1 (I am assuming you mean the gr_firmware's
>> >> "release etch despite firmware issues option", though that is
>> >> not at all clear) in no way requires anything that violates the
>> >> DFSG or the social contract, so it does not need the super
>> >> majority.
>> > Well, it :
>> >   1. allows for releasing firmware binaries under the GPL lacking
>> >      propper sources.
>> Wrong.  It only allows us to distribute drivers that upstream is
>> implying we have sources for -- and we have no proof that the
>> sources are not in the preferred form of modification.  Guessing
>> that the preferred form of modification is not proof.

> Well, we all know it is sourceless GPLed firmware, and we chose just
> to say the contrary, because it is convenient to us. IANAL, so i
> couldn't say if this is indeed a proper defense in court if we get
> sued, but i guess that it may be problematic. But then on the
> otherhand, i suppose the risk of getting sued is as negligible as
> the risk of getting sued over the other firmwares which are
> non-distributable.

        Can you spell out for us which kernel modules, in the opinion
 of the kernel team, are certainly sourceless GPL stuff? Please make
 sure you have the official opinion of the kernel team, and that you
 are saying that these modules do contain sourceless GPL'd material.

        Thank you,

Never put off until tomorrow what you can do the day after.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: