Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 09:54:01PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 03:14:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > IME, often, lawyers go "this probably won't do anything, but it can't
> > harm us, so meh, let's try and see what we can get from a judge if it
> > ever comes to it".
> >
> > Or even "I've seen this in other licenses, can't hurt, let's copy".
> >
> > If a requirement like that gets thrown out in court, they haven't lost
> > anything, but if it *doesn't* get thrown out, they have gained an
> > advantage.
>
> Indeed, but Debian should not promote this.
I never said anything of the sorts, but you suggested that Intel lawyers
"know exactly what advantage they can get" from doing something like
this. I don't think that's actually true, which is why I sent the above.
--
w@uter.{be,co.za}
wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org}
I will have a Tin-Actinium-Potassium mixture, thanks.
Reply to: