On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 06:43:47AM -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
> On 12/29/2009 07:52 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> No, the readme/copying is correct, it covers all of the code that runs
>> on the processor as one body of work.  Firmware blobs are different in
>> that they do not run in the same processor, and can be of a different
>> license.
>>
>
> Yes, but they don't cover everything in the tarball.  If I want to copy the 
> tarball, then I need to comply with the distribution license of the 
> tarball.  That license isn't clearly advertised.  It is a mix of a number 
> of licenses from GPL v2 to allowed-to-copy-without-modifications.

No, you can copy that tarball just fine, and when you _distribute_ it,
the GPLv2 applies to it.

> The processor that the software runs on is fairly irrelevant.

Not true at all, why would you think that?  Since when does a license
cross a processor boundry?

> In any case, I'm sure the kernel team will update the ebuild license string 
> appropriately - this is more of a debate for the LKML.  I just don't think 
> that they've done a good job with it.  Others are welcome to hold differing 
> opinions.  :)

You don't think the gentoo kernel team (of which I think I'm the
longest-term member), or the Linux kernel developers (of which I am the
actual person who put those images in the kernel back in the late
1990's after consulting many lawers, and Linus, on the issue) are doing
a good job with this?

thanks,

greg k-h