On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:51:15PM +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 20/02/2013 19:43, Greg KH wrote: > > Really? What firmware files are that way, I just did a quick scan > > through the upstream linux-firmware.git tree and didn't see anything > > that would prevent Gentoo from doing this. > > No, not really. Greg, please don't expect everybody's word here to be > the Project's as you did already once - especially not if they are not > even really involved in it.
Of course not, I know better than that from -dev, I've been around long enough :) That's why I was asking for specifics. > Ulrich Mueller (ulm) wrote this on the 16th: > > > Look into the WHENCE file and be horrified. Taking just the first ten > > items (of a total 114): > > > > Unknown license (3 times) Which ones specifically? > > GPL, but without source (3 times) Really? Which? > > "All rights reserved" That's not an issue, unless it is alone, is there something else in the license as well? > > BSD, without source There's no problem with that. > > Right for redistribution not granted Huh? Which? > > "Permission is hereby granted for the distribution [...] as part of > > a Linux or other Open Source operating system kernel" What is wrong with that? We happen to be distributing a Linux operating system. > > With one exception, we are not even allowed to redistribute these. I don't understand, please explain all of these in detail so that we can fix this upstream. > This is what we've been discussing about. This is not really about > Gentoo by itself, but the ability to distribute the sources at all, be > it from us or somebody else. I understand, and as an upstream developer, I want to see that fixed because all distros need to be able to distribute these files for the kernel to work properly. Oh, and other distros, with lots of lawyers, are distributing these firmware images as a single package, so this needs to be resolved either by realizing that our interpretation is incorrect, or that everyone is wrong here. thanks, greg k-h
