Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261195AbTEHHsl (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2003 03:48:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261201AbTEHHsl (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2003 03:48:41 -0400 Received: from slider.rack66.net ([212.3.252.135]:7388 "EHLO slider.rack66.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261195AbTEHHsk (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2003 03:48:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 10:01:16 +0200 From: Filip Van Raemdonck To: Simon Kelley Cc: Alan Cox , "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com Subject: Re: Binary firmware in the kernel - licensing issues. Message-ID: <20030508080116.GD15296@debian> Mail-Followup-To: Simon Kelley , Alan Cox , "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com References: <3EB79ECE.4010709@thekelleys.org.uk> <20030506121954.GO24892@mea-ext.zmailer.org> <20030506151644.GA19898@fieldses.org> <3EB7D7D9.2050603@thekelleys.org.uk> <1052234481.1202.20.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> <3EB8AD41.5010605@thekelleys.org.uk> <20030507090700.GD25251@debian> <3EB8D7D9.7070304@thekelleys.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EB8D7D9.7070304@thekelleys.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1276 Lines: 33 On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 10:54:33AM +0100, Simon Kelley wrote: > > Now Linus could say "I consider that the kernel copyright holders > did/didn't give permission to combine their work with firmware blobs" > and I contend that practically all the copyright holders would go along > with that judgement, just as they went along with Linus's judgement > about linking binary-only modules with their work. It's been pointed out repeatedly that there are a few which disagree with this; they just did not feel compelled (yet?) into action over it. But there is an important difference in binary modules vs binary firmware blobs. In the modules case, it's the binary modules provider which exposes himself to legal issues. In the firmware case, you are exposing the kernel itself to IP liability issues. Do you really want that? (Think SCO) Regards, Filip -- "There is a 90% chance that this message was written when the author's been up longer than he should have. Please disregard any senseless drivel." -- Chris Armstrong - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/