Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved > problem, or the ones discussing it. Actually, there are some legitimate problems with some of the files in the Linux source base. Last time this came up, the Aceni

Re: Bug#284221: acenic firmware situation summary

2004-12-13 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 12:15:57PM -0500, Christopher Priest wrote: > Is this helpful > http://web.archive.org/web/2711071330/sanjose.alteon.com/license-agree.shtml Not really. That licence doesn't allow Debian to distribute whatever it is that's being licenced. There's only permission for p

Re: acenic firmware situation summary

2004-12-12 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 03:17:31PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Warning: long. CC'ed to debian-legal in case anyone there knows anything more. How about cc'ing the author of the driver? He might know the answer. > The source for the acenic driver is in fact in the source package for > the k

Open Software License v2.1

2004-09-12 Thread Matthew Wilcox
I'd like to start by thanking Jeremy Hankins for his summary of debian-legal's objections to the Open Software License v2.0 in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00118.html Version 2.1 is upon us. It can be found at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php They do not provide

Re: Clarification of redistribution

2004-08-10 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:51:08PM -0400, Mike Olson wrote: > I'm following up on a thread that's a month or so old, now. My > apologies for the delay in closing this out. Not at all, thank you for pursuing this. > I was unsuccessful in getting the Commons folks to work with the FSF > on a GPL-c

Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?

2004-06-18 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 09:02:25AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > I would be much more convinced if I saw an argument from the > GPL-incompatible-firmware-is-OK side as to why the GPL prohibits > distributing linkages of GPL'd and GPL-incompatible code. The interpretation favoured by kernel

Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?

2004-06-17 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:03:16PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote: > Traditionally people have erred on the side of caution in interpreting free > licenses, following the wishes of the copyright holder and looking to the > license's author for guidance. In this case the FSF indicates the binary > firmwar

Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?

2004-06-15 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 12:57:15PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > I ask because such a file is present in Debian's Linux kernel sources and > there seems to have been no attempt to remove it, despite the upload of > new versions since the bug report. > > drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h: > > * The