Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - Since this Keyspan license seems to be objectionable, what kind of > license can/should a company put on its binary firmware image that > has to be included in the Linux kernel. They can't/will not put GPL > on the binary image, as we/Linus has been saying for quite some time > that this is not necessary (the whole "mere aggregation" point.)
If they can't/won't put the GPL on it, they could distribute it under a X style copyright. But if they won't do that, then it can't be integrated with GPL'd software. What are their reasons for not doing so? Linus does not have the right to declare new "interpretations" of the GPL which gut it, without clearing first with *ALL* the contributors to the kernel who expected it to be distributed under the GPL. "mere aggregation" does not include linking. "mere aggregation" implies *just* aggregation, and not combination. It's what you do when you make a CD with a bunch of different programs. > There are lots of firmware images in your computer that don't have a > OpenSource license on them, just that now some of these devices > require the host to send the image to them before they can work > properly. That is quite correct. The moral stance of free software is that if it is technically possible for me to modify and distribute the code usefully, then it should be legally possible. If they make the device such that the firmware can be changed and downloaded, but then go and refuse to grant people the rights to do that, then they are software hoarders and not our friends. Thomas
