On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 09:04:40PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > * Firmware is: > > * Derived from proprietary unpublished source code, > > * Copyright (C) 2000-2003 Broadcom Corporation. > > * > > * Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware > > * data in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this copyright > > * notice is accompanying it. > > */ > > > >Notice how clearly it states that there is *SOURCE CODE*, and thus the > >previous license, which is GPL, is violated, and you can't possible close > >your > >eyes on this one, claiming that the hexcode may be the prefered form of > >modification. > > It also says that for the purpose of the license it is "firmware data", > and the GPL does not require source for data.
Sure, and for the CD burner, windows is data too, right ? We all know you are of the opinion to consider firmware as data and ignore the fact that there is indeed source code, but i fear that this position will not stand long before a judge should we ever go this way. Notice how this same argument was used to demostrate that the firmware is not a derivative work of the kenrel (and vice-versa), but it is not enough to make the said firmware DFSG free. The above license fails two DFSG clauses, the no source one and the modification rights one. > FWIW, I fully agree with the position of the release team (but I still > believe that not distributing the other firmwares is stupid and does not > help our goals). I also mostly agree with the result of the release team position, i just find it sad that we had to vote a resolution which contradicted directly in at least two places what is essentially the position of the release team and the kernel team, while a better and cleaner resolution was being prepared. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
