| 1 |
Harald van D3k wrote: |
| 2 |
> Right, which is why at the same time it would be useful to have an |
| 3 |
> option to not install those files. There's no problem with USE |
| 4 |
> conditionals in LICENSE; LICENSE="GPL-2 firmware? ( freedist )" or |
| 5 |
> expanded further would be fine, and simply nuke those files on install |
| 6 |
> with USE="-firmware". |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Nick White is already working on modifying the kernel-2 eclass so that |
| 9 |
it's possible to remove such files, using the deblobbing scripts from |
| 10 |
the FSF-LA. See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=266157. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Your license suggestion would be a perfect accompaniment. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> The GPL-2 licensed parts of all the kernel packages -- so probably |
| 15 |
> everything that matters -- could be installed with |
| 16 |
> ACCEPT_LICENSE="GPL-2" with my above suggestion. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Yes, and using just 'freedist' as you suggested, should remove all the |
| 19 |
hassle of keeping the list up-to-date. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Greg KH wrote: |
| 23 |
> Also note that the license of the firmware files do not matter to |
| 24 |
> almost everyone using the kernel, as almost no one uses those files |
| 25 |
> anymore, the ones in the linux-firmware package should be used |
| 26 |
> instead. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The key word here is 'almost'. For example, I happened to be using one |
| 29 |
or two of them, before I found out they were non-free. I was |
| 30 |
oblivious to it initially because it wasn't reflected in the license. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
All I'm asking for is that users who care about this will be shown an |
| 33 |
accurate license, so that they can be as free as possible, if they |
| 34 |
choose that path. We obviously have different beliefs on the issue, but |
| 35 |
isn't it better to accommodate both--aren't we aiming for essentially |
| 36 |
the same goals anyway? :) |
Archives