Re: How aggressively should non-distributability bugs be dealt with?

2004-07-07 Thread Branden Robinson
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:00:36AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > I'm also not in favor of this tacit "assume we aren't violating the > intent of the license when we're clearly violating the letter of it, > unless we find out otherwise" precedent that's being set by this; we > didn't accept it for K

Re: How aggressively should non-distributability bugs be dealt with?

2004-06-19 Thread Francesco Poli
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:58:37 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote: > > Of course, releasing the source is an essential step of making > > something free. > > When I wrote "to r[e]license it under a GPL-compatible license" (and > > put a typo in it... :p ) I meant implicitly that source code should > > be pr

Re: How aggressively should non-distributability bugs be dealt with?

2004-06-17 Thread Josh Triplett
Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:22:06 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote: >>Francesco Poli wrote: >>>IMHO the best solution would be to contact the firmware copyright >>>holder and persuade her to rilicense it under a GPL-compatible >>>license (so that every doubt would go away immediately).

Re: How aggressively should non-distributability bugs be dealt with?

2004-06-17 Thread Francesco Poli
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:22:06 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote: > Francesco Poli wrote: > > IMHO the best solution would be to contact the firmware copyright > > holder and persuade her to rilicense it under a GPL-compatible > > license (so that every doubt would go away immediately). > > This would not

Re: How aggressively should non-distributability bugs be dealt with?

2004-06-16 Thread Josh Triplett
Francesco Poli wrote: > IMHO the best solution would be to contact the firmware copyright holder > and persuade her to rilicense it under a GPL-compatible license (so that > every doubt would go away immediately). This would not solve the problem, unless they also released the source of the firmwa

Re: How aggressively should non-distributability bugs be dealt with?

2004-06-16 Thread Francesco Poli
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:21:08 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote: > I ask because of #242895. In the Linux kernel, > drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h has a specific proprietary rights > statement which does not give permission to distribute. I will not enter in the discussion about the nature of those firmw

Re: How aggressively should non-distributability bugs be dealt with?

2004-06-16 Thread Joe Wreschnig
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 13:21, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > I ask because of #242895. In the Linux kernel, drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h > has a specific proprietary rights statement which does not give permission > to distribute. The previous kernel maintainer merged it with other bugs > (IMO incorrect

How aggressively should non-distributability bugs be dealt with?

2004-06-15 Thread Nathanael Nerode
I ask because of #242895. In the Linux kernel, drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h has a specific proprietary rights statement which does not give permission to distribute. The previous kernel maintainer merged it with other bugs (IMO incorrectly) and proceeded to ignore it for at least four uploads. Th