Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Add deblob support only for python3
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 17:28:31
Message-Id: e57e51673b3aa12456449155842b5c4b02e50c12.camel@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Add deblob support only for python3 by Alice
1 On Sun, 2021-07-25 at 01:57 +0900, Alice wrote:
2 > On 7/25/21 1:56 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
3 > > Dnia July 24, 2021 4:52:28 PM UTC, Alice <alicef@g.o> napisał(a):
4 > > > On 7/24/21 3:30 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
5 > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 24 Jul 2021, alicef wrote:
6 > > > >
7 > > > > > On July 24, 2021 3:21:56 AM GMT+09:00, Ulrich Mueller
8 > > > <ulm@g.o> wrote:
9 > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 23 Jul 2021, Alice wrote:
10 > > > > > >
11 > > > > > > > > GNU FSDG-compliance require not only removing non-free code but
12 > > > also
13 > > > > > > > > to disable loading of known non-free firmware.
14 > > > > > >
15 > > > > > > So they actually remove code that by itself is free software. I had
16 > > > > > > suspected that. (By what logic does removing an option add to the
17 > > > > > > user's freedom and choice, though? :)
18 > > > > > >
19 > > > > > > > I also point you to some other information from the mailing list
20 > > > > > > >
21 > > > https://www.fsfla.org/pipermail/linux-libre/2020-August/003400.html
22 > > > > > > > https://www.fsfla.org/pipermail/linux-libre/2021-May/003419.html
23 > > > > > >
24 > > > > > > Thank you. Looks like there's no issue with the LICENSE="GPL-2"
25 > > > label
26 > > > > > > for recent kernels then.
27 > > > >
28 > > > > > that's not what they are saying.
29 > > > >
30 > > > > The first posting references a discussion on Wikipedia (which I think
31 > > > is
32 > > > > a third party with a more neutral point of view than Linux-libre):
33 > > > >
34 > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linux_kernel/Archive_7#RfC_on_the_Linux_kernel_licensing_rules
35 > > > >
36 > > > > I tend to agree with their conclusion, which resulted in the
37 > > > following
38 > > > > wording:
39 > > > >
40 > > > > "The official kernel, that is the Linus git branch at the kernel.org
41 > > > > repository, does not contain any kind of proprietary code; however
42 > > > Linux
43 > > > > can search the filesystems to locate proprietary firmware, drivers,
44 > > > and
45 > > > > other executable modules (collectively known as "binary blobs"), then
46 > > > it
47 > > > > can load and link them into the kernel space."
48 > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Firmware_binary_blobs
49 > > > >
50 > > > > > but I repeat again please open a thread to their own mailing list
51 > > > not
52 > > > > > here.
53 > > > >
54 > > > > Sorry, but I don't care about the Linux-libre patches, only about the
55 > > > > mainline kernel. So if anything, I would start a thread on the LKML
56 > > > > about concrete files that violate the GPL. Then again, I don't have
57 > > > > evidence of any such files (see above).
58 > > > >
59 > > >
60 > > > You are complain against linux-libre not mainline kernel so you should
61 > > > ask their opinion on this topic. linux-libre@×××××.org
62 > > >
63 > > > My modest opinion on the topic is:
64 > > > As far that is free software and there are users that use deblob, I
65 > > > don't see any reason on why we should not support this and give them
66 > > > the
67 > > > choice. Gentoo is about choice.
68 > >
69 > > Then why does none of the supported kernels offer that choice?
70 > >
71 >
72 > why they shouldn't ?
73 >
74
75 That's my question. Apparently deblob is only supported for rt-sources.
76 Last I heard, only gentoo-sources are officially supported.
77
78 --
79 Best regards,
80 Michał Górny

Replies