| 1 |
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021, Alice wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 7/23/21 9:52 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 4 |
>> My point is, when we changed the ACCEPT_LICENSE default to @FREE in |
| 5 |
>> 2019, there was a discussion if we could remove LICENSE="linux-firmware" |
| 6 |
>> from kernel packages. The conclusion was that we could do so starting |
| 7 |
>> with version 4.14, because in that version firmware was gone from the |
| 8 |
>> Linux kernel tree. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
>> Now, either our conclusion back then was right, then >=*-sources-4.14 |
| 11 |
>> are under a free software license, and I don't understand what would be |
| 12 |
>> the purpose of deblobbing. Could somebody more knowledgeable please |
| 13 |
>> explain it to me? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
>> Or our conclusion was wrong, which means that there are still non-free |
| 16 |
>> files in the kernel tree. Again, could someone explain and show me |
| 17 |
>> examples of such non-free files? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> I think this discussion is not to do be done here. |
| 20 |
> if you want to discuss about deblob philosophy please open a thread |
| 21 |
> about this on the FSF mailing list. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Sorry for my perseverance, but it affects what we declare as LICENSE |
| 24 |
of kernel packages, so at least to some degree it _is_ our discussion. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
According to COPYING and Documentation/process/license-rules.rst the |
| 27 |
kernel is "provided under the terms of the GNU General Public License |
| 28 |
version 2 only". Does the FSFLA/Linux-libre project challenge that |
| 29 |
statement (and if yes, why don't they work with Linux upstream to |
| 30 |
rectify the situation)? I am still hoping that someone will explain it |
| 31 |
to me. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Ulrich |
Archives