On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 13:21, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > I ask because of #242895. In the Linux kernel, drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h > has a specific proprietary rights statement which does not give permission > to distribute. The previous kernel maintainer merged it with other bugs > (IMO incorrectly) and proceeded to ignore it for at least four uploads. The > new kernel uploaders appear to be ignoring it as well. > > Personally, I would think that anything which exposes Debian to lawsuits for > wilful copyright infrignement should be removed as soon as humanly possible. > However, I'm not willing to do the necessary badgering of the kernel > maintainers alone this week, so I'm asking what other people think, and if > anyone else (perhaps a DD) would like to take point on this.
I have been responding to people on -kernel and -devel about this, but I don't know enough about kernel programming to actually help replace the drivers, which would go a long way to convincing people. I also don't think replacements are necessary (nor should we wait for them if they will take a long time), because IMO Debian is very clearly infringing upon copyright here (the copyright of the owners of undistributable firmware on one hand, and the copyright of people who submitted code to the Linux kernel under the terms of the GNU GPL on the other). Notable relevant URLs are http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2003/May/2077.html where Adam Richter (whose company holds some copyrights on kernel code) says he does believe proprietary firmware infringes upon those copyrights; and http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2004/06/msg00064.html where AJ straightforwardly says that currently these firmwares need to be removed; and even after the results of the GR (if it ever actually gets to a vote...) it will *still* need to be separated from the kernel, because a GR can only suspend the DFSG, not copyright law. Though, neither of these should come as as surprise to -legal regulars. The FSF also holds some Linux kernel copyrights, and from what I've read they share Adam's interpretation. So, that's at least two copyright holders who believe we're violating their license. I'm also not in favor of this tacit "assume we aren't violating the intent of the license when we're clearly violating the letter of it, unless we find out otherwise" precedent that's being set by this; we didn't accept it for KDE, so why is it okay for the kernel? -- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
