On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:32:34AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:15:42PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > I am about to send upstream my latest advice on the licence issues i > > discussed here previously, and have one last question. > > > To recapitulate, upstream is packaging a pci adsl modem driver, which > > use a software library to do the ADSL decoding. They don't have the > > source to this library themselves. > > > They plan to release it under the GPL or something such, and i suggested > > adding an exception for the proprietary code, as found on the FSF FAQ : > > > In addition, as a special exception, <name of copyright > > holder> gives permission to link the code of this program with > > the FOO library (or with modified versions of FOO that use the > > same license as FOO), and distribute linked combinations including > > the two. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all > > respects for all of the code used other than FOO. If you modify > > this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the > > file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to > > do so, delete this exception statement from your version. > > > Would this be enough for the driver in question to enter > > debian/non-free, in particular, this allow me to distribute the > > binaries, of the linked combination of the GPLed part and the > > proprietary part, but does this cover me/us/debian about distributing > > the proprietary .o in the source package, as this is a standard debian > > kernel-module-source package ? > > If their code is GPL with an exemption, and the library they use is > non-free and we can legally redistribute it, and the two pieces of code > will be distributed together, this can be uploaded to non-free. Note > that being able to redistribute the non-free code depends on *its* > license, not on the license of the module being built with it. > > If the GPL code will be packaged separately from the software library, > the GPL code belongs in contrib and the binary-only library belongs in > non-free (if it can be distributed at all).
Well, i was afraid of that, but was hoping the "and distribute linked combinations including the two" part would cover us a bit about this. The driver is one package only, the proprietary parts is just an .o, or various .o, since i can get powerpc, arm, sh and i386 version. What would be needed for the proprietary part ? A licence stating that it is ok to distribute it and link it with the GPLed driver ? Would that be enough ? I will try calling them about this tomorrow, but i already told them, and it may take some time for them to get a licence back from the copyright holder of the proprietary part. Thanks for your advice. Friendly, Sven Luther
