Sven Luther wrote: [snip] > > That would violate the TOS for alioth. Do not check non-free code into > > the d-i subversion repository. > > Well, the main point is, can you really speak about code when you are > contemplating a 1k boot-sector, which is why i have CCed debian-legal, > but got no response yet.
It surely is code. > Also, i wonder how free a free replacement could be, if in order to work > it would have to be exactly the same as the one in question here. Do we > really need to consider source code for this one ? And in this case, > what would the source code of a small binary sector look like ? A few lines of assembly, nearly indistinguishable from the disassembly. > I thought that copyright mat not apply to such cases, where there is > only one way of making this kind of stuff work, and where the bit > sequence is accordying short. It still does apply, but you aren't barred from writing a very similiar thing. > Again, i have no real idea if this applies here, which is why i asked > for advice on debian-legal, let's see what comes out of it. > > Also, maybe we should remove d-i from main altogether, since it depends > on non-free code in the bios of your motherboard ? Please don't port flamewars from -devel to -boot. Thanks. > > You are free to set up your own fork of the debian-installer package, > > call it "debian-installer-non-free", and upload it to non-free or contrib, > > and arrange to build the non-free boot images from it. That would be one > > way. > > Yeah, a loosy way though. Or do you think that we should have a > debian-installer-contrib for the other boot loader which can only be > built on the native OS of the hardware ? Either that, or find a way to build it with software from main. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
