>>>>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2021, alicef wrote: > On July 24, 2021 3:21:56 AM GMT+09:00, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021, Alice wrote: >> >>>> GNU FSDG-compliance require not only removing non-free code but also >>>> to disable loading of known non-free firmware. >> >> So they actually remove code that by itself is free software. I had >> suspected that. (By what logic does removing an option add to the >> user's freedom and choice, though? :) >> >>> I also point you to some other information from the mailing list >>> https://www.fsfla.org/pipermail/linux-libre/2020-August/003400.html >>> https://www.fsfla.org/pipermail/linux-libre/2021-May/003419.html >> >> Thank you. Looks like there's no issue with the LICENSE="GPL-2" label >> for recent kernels then.
> that's not what they are saying. The first posting references a discussion on Wikipedia (which I think is a third party with a more neutral point of view than Linux-libre): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linux_kernel/Archive_7#RfC_on_the_Linux_kernel_licensing_rules I tend to agree with their conclusion, which resulted in the following wording: "The official kernel, that is the Linus git branch at the kernel.org repository, does not contain any kind of proprietary code; however Linux can search the filesystems to locate proprietary firmware, drivers, and other executable modules (collectively known as "binary blobs"), then it can load and link them into the kernel space." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Firmware_binary_blobs > but I repeat again please open a thread to their own mailing list not > here. Sorry, but I don't care about the Linux-libre patches, only about the mainline kernel. So if anything, I would start a thread on the LKML about concrete files that violate the GPL. Then again, I don't have evidence of any such files (see above). Ulrich
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
