On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:47:36PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > >Yep, but in the meantime, let's clearly mark said firmware as > >not-covered-by-the-GPL. In the acenic case it seems to be even easier, as > >the > >firmware is in a separate acenic_firmware.h file, and it just needs to have > >the proper licencing statement added, saying that it is not covered by the > >GPL, and then giving the information under what licence it is being > >distributed. > > Who has meaningfully contacted Alteon (probably "Neterion" now) about > this? What is the progress of that request?
Nobody yet. I plan to do so as time allows though. But how do you respond about the firmware blobs being declared as GPL covered in the kernel ? Who put those firmware blobs there, and form where did they came ? > >Jeff, since your name was found in the tg3.c case, and you seem to care > >about > >this too, what is your take on this proposal ? > > > >Friendly, > > Bluntly, Debian is being a pain in the ass ;-) Thanks all the same, in this case, it is just me though, who want a clear solution to this, and you would too, i guess, especially as it is not much work to do it in the first place, so why is everyone making a problem of this ? > There will always be non-free firmware to deal with, for key hardware. Sure, but then you don't claim they are covered by the GPL as is currently the case ? And i thought that the whole SCO affaire teached us to be more careful about this. It assuredly can't hurt to add a few lines of comments to tg3.c, and since it is probably (well, 1/3 chance here) you who added said firmware to the tg3.c file, i guess you are even well placed to at least exclude it from being GPLed. Is this not a reasonable request ? Which should get a reasonable answer, and not claims of being a pain in the ass, and other wild fanatical accusations ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
