Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:47:13 +0200
To: Marco Colombo <marco@esi.it>
Cc: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Message-ID: <20050413194713.GB29327@pegasos>
References: <1113235942.11475.547.camel@frodo.esi> <20050411162514.GA11404@pegasos> <1113252891.11475.620.camel@frodo.esi> <20050411210754.GA11759@pegasos> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504120034490.27766@Megathlon.ESI> <20050412054002.GB22393@pegasos> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504121458010.31686@Megathlon.ESI> <20050412184545.GB18557@pegasos> <1113404036.12421.83.camel@frodo.esi>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1113404036.12421.83.camel@frodo.esi>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1097
Lines: 27

On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:53:56PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > > This is different. They are not giving the source at all. The licence
> > > for those object files _has_ to be different. _They_ want it to be
> > > different.
> > 
> > Sure, but in this case, the binary firmware blob is also a binary without
> > sources. If they really did write said firmware directly as it is, then they
> > should say so, but this is contrary to everyone's expectation, and a dangerous
> > precedent to set.
> 
> You should realize that any author can publish his work in the form he
> likes. He's not bound to "everyone's expectation". I see no danger in
> that.

I think there may be some limitation of using the GPL as licence in this case
though, as such behavior may limit its value, and the GPL itself is by no
means free software.

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/