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