On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Alec Warner wrote: > >> Lets not re-invent the wheel here: > >> Debian has free and non-free packages. >> http://packages.debian.org/sid/firmware-linux > >> # free copyright >> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/f/firmware-free/firmware-free_3.2/firmware-linux-free.copyright > >> # nonfree copyright >> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-nonfree_0.36+wheezy.1/firmware-linux-nonfree.copyright > >> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/linux-firmware.git/tree/linux-firmware.spec >> Specifically: >> License: GPL+ and GPLv2+ and MIT and Redistributable, no modification >> permitted > >> It looks like OpenSuse has split packages. Most distros are debian or >> redhat based these days. > >> We can easily have a firmware package that is USE="nonfree" and only >> install the libre firmware, ala debian. This also fixes 'the license >> issue' because if people want ACCEPT_LICENSE=@OSI-APPROVED they just >> need to turn the nonfree flag off. > >> None of this is rocket science, and the work has likely already been >> done by others, so just take it and go. > > I mostly agree. However, there are not two, but three classes of > licenses for firmware images: > > 1. Free software > 2. Non-free, but can be redistributed > 3. Cannot be redistributed > > The split between 2 and 3 is the more important one, because we cannot > mirror things under 3.
Have we talked to debian then? Nominally if we can't dist it, they can't dist it (and vice versa.) -A > > Ulrich >
