> - 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.) > 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.
Thinking about it a little more, I think that Keyspan's objectives can be met if the firmware is moved entirely out of the kernel tree. Then there could be a userland utility that can make use of any data provided to it. Interestingly enough, I think that this is what Adam said that his patch does. In that case, someone else (such as Keyspan, or a usb aficionado) would have to provide the firmware data. Debian couldn't do it, because they don't have permission to even make copies. Since it doesn't seem like Keyspan can make the firmware GPL compatibile, that might be the best solution right now. Also, if it is not true that the data, as provided in the keyspan*fw* files, is the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", then fiddling with the license can't help. The userland utility is the only way. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
