| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Lets not re-invent the wheel here: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> Debian has free and non-free packages. |
| 7 |
>> http://packages.debian.org/sid/firmware-linux |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>> # free copyright |
| 10 |
>> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/f/firmware-free/firmware-free_3.2/firmware-linux-free.copyright |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>> # nonfree copyright |
| 13 |
>> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-nonfree_0.36+wheezy.1/firmware-linux-nonfree.copyright |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/linux-firmware.git/tree/linux-firmware.spec |
| 16 |
>> Specifically: |
| 17 |
>> License: GPL+ and GPLv2+ and MIT and Redistributable, no modification permitted |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
>> It looks like OpenSuse has split packages. Most distros are debian or |
| 20 |
>> redhat based these days. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
>> We can easily have a firmware package that is USE="nonfree" and only |
| 23 |
>> install the libre firmware, ala debian. This also fixes 'the license |
| 24 |
>> issue' because if people want ACCEPT_LICENSE=@OSI-APPROVED they just |
| 25 |
>> need to turn the nonfree flag off. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
>> None of this is rocket science, and the work has likely already been |
| 28 |
>> done by others, so just take it and go. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> I mostly agree. However, there are not two, but three classes of |
| 31 |
> licenses for firmware images: |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> 1. Free software |
| 34 |
> 2. Non-free, but can be redistributed |
| 35 |
> 3. Cannot be redistributed |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> The split between 2 and 3 is the more important one, because we cannot |
| 38 |
> mirror things under 3. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Have we talked to debian then? Nominally if we can't dist it, they |
| 41 |
can't dist it (and vice versa.) |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-A |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Ulrich |
| 47 |
> |
Archives