On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 10:30:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> [-devel trimmed]
>
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please reread the discussion on debian-legal about this, where consensus was
> > mostly found to support this idea, and also remember that we contacted
> > broadcom with this a
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Should the ftpmasters, who have even less legal expertise,
>
> Judging by some of the nonsense that debian-legal is typically riddled with,
It's generally quite easy to spot the
[-devel trimmed]
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please reread the discussion on debian-legal about this, where consensus was
> mostly found to support this idea, and also remember that we contacted
> broadcom with this analysis, who contacted their legal team, and i also mailed
> the FSF
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 12:15:20AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I'd love to see a legal opinion from the SPI lawyers regarding who would be
> liable if Debian did commit copyright infringment (or whatever) and someone
> sued.
FWIW, there's a few things I'd love to see legal opinions on too,
in
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Actually, letting an overworked team of four with (to my knowledge) zero
>> legal expertise settle questions of legal liability is pretty absurd too.
>
> They are the team responsible for vetting the le
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >> Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
> >> minefield. That is higher priority than the entire discussion going on
> >> right
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:18:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > Since the firmware blobs are not derivative works of the kernel, but
> > constitute mere agregation in the same binary format, the authors of other
> > pieces of GPLed code fo the linux kernel cannot even
Sven Luther wrote:
> Since the firmware blobs are not derivative works of the kernel, but
> constitute mere agregation in the same binary format, the authors of other
> pieces of GPLed code fo the linux kernel cannot even sue us for
> distributing the kernel code with those GPL-violating binary BL
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
>> Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
>> minefield. That is higher priority than the entire discussion going on
>> right now, because it determines whether Debian will dis
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 05:16:29PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, 30.08.2006 at 09:27:21 +0200, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
> >
Hello,
On Wed, 30.08.2006 at 09:27:21 +0200, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
> > technically does not permit redistribution. At least 53 blobs have this
>
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 09:00:27AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 07:17:47PM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > >
> > > > Debian needs
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 09:27:21AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
> > technically does not permit redistribution. At least 53 blobs have this
> > problem. Many of the
On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
> technically does not permit redistribution. At least 53 blobs have this
> problem. Many of them are licensed under the GPL, but without source code
> provided. Since
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 07:17:47PM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >
> > > Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
> > > minefield. Tha
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 07:17:47PM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
> > Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
> > minefield. That is higher priority than the entire discussion goin
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
> minefield. That is higher priority than the entire discussion going on
> right now, because it determines whether Debian will distribute these 53
> BLOBs *at a
Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Luk Claes wrote:
>> -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> 6c557439-9c21-4eec-ad6c-e6384fab56a8
>> [ 1 ] Choice 1: Release etch on time
>> [ 3 ] Choice 2: Do not ship sourceless firmware in
18 matches
Mail list logo
