| 1 |
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:36:34AM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote: |
| 2 |
> 1) Not all of the licenses are completely accurate. For example, the |
| 3 |
> Linux kernels are listed as soley GPL-2, yet they contain blobs of |
| 4 |
> non-free firmware. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
The fact that some people claim that the firmware blobs somehow violate |
| 7 |
the GPLv2 license of the kernel is a claim, not a fact, so please do not |
| 8 |
state it as such. Also note that the majority of these firmware blobs |
| 9 |
are now removed from the kernel, and are in a separate patckage, so this |
| 10 |
might be totally irrelevant at this point in time. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Also note that the FSF has nothing to do with the Linux kernel project |
| 13 |
or developers, so their statements have nothing to pertain to it and the |
| 14 |
kernel's "license purity". |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
So please don't state that the Linux kernel is not properly listed as |
| 17 |
the GPLv2, because it is. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
thanks, |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
greg "I made the kernel not-free according to debian-legal in 1999" k-h |
Archives