| 1 |
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 11:55:49PM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote: |
| 2 |
> Greg KH wrote: |
| 3 |
> > And note, _I_ placed those images in the kernel image, after consulting |
| 4 |
> > lawyers about this issue, so it's not like I don't know what I am |
| 5 |
> > talking about here. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I'm not questioning whether it's legal to distribute non-free firmware |
| 8 |
> alongside the GPL. I'm merely saying that the firmware _is_ non-free, |
| 9 |
> which should be reflected by the ebuild licenses. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
So you are saying that the license for the kernel should show the |
| 12 |
license for all of the different firmware files as well? That would get |
| 13 |
pretty unusable, and keep the kernel from being able to be installed on |
| 14 |
anyone's machine that didn't want such licenses, right? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Also note that the license of the firmware files do not matter to almost |
| 17 |
everyone using the kernel, as almost no one uses those files anymore, |
| 18 |
the ones in the linux-firmware package should be used instead. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
So as we are a source-based distro, if you object to those firmware |
| 21 |
licenses, just don't build them in your kernel builds. But to expect to |
| 22 |
list all of them as the license for the whole kernel package, that's not |
| 23 |
a workable solution as far as I can see. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> > So it's a pointless effort. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> To you maybe, but it's important to some. Note that updating the |
| 28 |
> licenses would only affect those with strict ACCEPT_LICENSE settings |
| 29 |
> anyway. I don't understand why you'd oppose the change. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
So you want anyone with such strict settings to not be able to install |
| 32 |
the kernel package at all? If so, what kernel do you want them to be |
| 33 |
able to use? :) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
thanks, |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
greg k-h |
Archives