[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >My understanding is that upstream has not been entirely receptive >to patches that remove non-free firmware from it. Maybe that's >because they don't have an established firmware-nonfree project >(like Debian does) into which to move that firmware? No, it's because they really do not believe this to be a problem, like everybody else but a few people polluting debian-legal.
>A consensus of DD that "firmware is not software" carries no >legal weight. 44 of the sourceless-firmware-contaminated >files in the Linux kernel are claimed to be covered by the GPL. >There is no legal way for Debian to redistribute those files, >since we can't provide that source to people who attempt to >exercise their GPL-mandated rights. Other distributions disagree, and they have actual lawyers who are payed to care about such things. >http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/08/msg00166.html >> > I think we should learn from OpenBSD on this front. >> I agree. Indeed, the OpenBSD project not only distributes >> sourceless firmwares, but also sourceless firmwares with a >> license which forbids modifications and reverse engineering. >Care to back up that statement? It runs 180 degrees counter >to my understanding of OpenBSD. Feel free to dig in the OpenBSD mailing lists archives if you care. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]