Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:09:50PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote: >> + | We allow inclusion into etch even if the way we distribute the >> + | firmware leads to a violation of the license, > > Uh, no we won't. > > There are claims that the GPL, when applied to "sourceless" firmware, > doesn't provide permission to redistribute because there's presumably a > "more preferred" version of the source in existance somewhere. That's > an *argument* that a violation may exist, not proof that one does. If > that argument were accepted by Debian, we would not be distributing > it no matter what GRs there might be, right up to the DFSG and Social > Contract being entirely scrapped -- it would be *illegal* to distribute > those works, both for us, for Red Hat, for kernel.org and just about > everyone else.
Okay. Since I never read anybody saying it this clearly (in other words, contradicting Sven when he asserted that the claims were true), I wasn't aware of that. It seems to me as if we might need to phrase the vote in a way that also makes clear which interpretation we follow. >> if the current >> + | license does not allow modification, or if there is no source >> + | available. However, we still require that the firmware has a >> + | license that, in principle, allows distribution (possibly under >> + | conditions we currently cannot fully meet). >> What do you think? That would make, e.g.: + | firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch. + | We allow inclusion into etch even if the current license does + | not allow modification, or if there are hints that there exists + | a form more suited for modification than the binary form + | included in the kernel. However, we still require that the + | firmware has a license that allows distribution. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)