| 1 |
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 06:43:47AM -0500, Richard Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/29/2009 07:52 PM, Greg KH wrote: |
| 3 |
>> No, the readme/copying is correct, it covers all of the code that runs |
| 4 |
>> on the processor as one body of work. Firmware blobs are different in |
| 5 |
>> that they do not run in the same processor, and can be of a different |
| 6 |
>> license. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Yes, but they don't cover everything in the tarball. If I want to copy the |
| 10 |
> tarball, then I need to comply with the distribution license of the |
| 11 |
> tarball. That license isn't clearly advertised. It is a mix of a number |
| 12 |
> of licenses from GPL v2 to allowed-to-copy-without-modifications. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
No, you can copy that tarball just fine, and when you _distribute_ it, |
| 15 |
the GPLv2 applies to it. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> The processor that the software runs on is fairly irrelevant. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Not true at all, why would you think that? Since when does a license |
| 20 |
cross a processor boundry? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> In any case, I'm sure the kernel team will update the ebuild license string |
| 23 |
> appropriately - this is more of a debate for the LKML. I just don't think |
| 24 |
> that they've done a good job with it. Others are welcome to hold differing |
| 25 |
> opinions. :) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
You don't think the gentoo kernel team (of which I think I'm the |
| 28 |
longest-term member), or the Linux kernel developers (of which I am the |
| 29 |
actual person who put those images in the kernel back in the late |
| 30 |
1990's after consulting many lawers, and Linus, on the issue) are doing |
| 31 |
a good job with this? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
thanks, |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
greg k-h |
Archives