On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 07:58:00PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:09:50PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > > Hi, > > Let's propose the following ammendment to your ammendment, or rather propose a > new point 4. > > 4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every bit > out; > for this reason, we will treat removal of problematic firmware as a > best-effort process, and deliver firmware in debian kernel packages as > well > as installation packages (.udebs), as part of Debian Etch. > We allow inclusion into etch, even if the license does not normally allow > modification, as long as we are legally allowed to distribute them. > We further note that some of these firmware do not have proper license, > and as thus fall implicitly under the generic linux kernel GPL license. > The sourceless nature of these firmwares make them de-facto > non-distributable. Still, we extend the benefit of the doubt to those > hardware vendors, who probably did not understand the implication of not > adding a proper license for those firmwares, and will include them in > Debian etch. We will work with those firmware vendors post-etch, to > provide proper sources for those firmwares, to clarify their licenses, or > to provide a statement that those are not actually programs, but plain > register dumps.
Manoj suggested i split this clause in subclauses. I have added a complete version of the clauses to the kernelfirmware wiki page : http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing Which would probably be an easier way to handle this, and work on a definitive solution. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
