Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262136AbVDFHul (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2005 03:50:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262137AbVDFHuk (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2005 03:50:40 -0400 Received: from smtp4.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.22.27]:36699 "EHLO smtp4.wanadoo.fr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262136AbVDFHua (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2005 03:50:30 -0400 X-ME-UUID: 20050406075029162.27AF11C00390@mwinf0409.wanadoo.fr Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:46:54 +0200 To: Josselin Mouette Cc: Sven Luther , debian-legal@lists.debian.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice. Message-ID: <20050406074653.GA12492@pegasos> References: <4252A821.9030506@almg.gov.br> <1112723637.4878.14.camel@mirchusko.localnet> <4252DDE6.5040500@nortel.com> <1112727369.4878.25.camel@mirchusko.localnet> <20050406001052.GA3208@pegasos> <1112772884.2271.0.camel@silicium.ccc.cea.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1112772884.2271.0.camel@silicium.ccc.cea.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: Sven Luther Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2021 Lines: 42 On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 09:34:44AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mercredi 06 avril 2005 ? 02:10 +0200, Sven Luther a ?crit : > > > It merely depends on the definition of "aggregation". I'd say that two > > > works that are only aggregated can be easily distinguished and > > > separated. This is not the case for a binary kernel module, from which > > > you cannot easily extract the firmware and code parts. > > > > Josselin, please read the thread i linked to in debian-legal, and as nobody > > really gave reason to oppose it, i believe we have consensus that those > > firmware blobs constitute mere agregation, provided they are clearly > > identified and properly licenced, which they are not always. > > The fact that nobody cared to answer you shouldn't be considered as any > kind of approval for your sayings. There were a couple of replies, but if you are going to argue this, please read the analysis i made, and reply to it. Read in particular : http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00288.html Which contains a more formal analysis from Humberto Massa. So, given that this thread together with the GPLed firmware flasher thread got a respectable amount of replies, i believe we can claim consensus, and this is something the debian-kernel team has been acting upon, and i believe even aknowledged by the release managers and ftp-masters. If you have strong evidence that this is not the case, it would really have been nice to comment on it before the kernel team (not only me which you may dislike for past dealings or whatever) waste effort on something which is wrong in the first place, and i commend you to participate in the above thread asap, voicing your concerns (or remain silent forever thereafter :). Friendly, Sven Luther - 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/