>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021, Alice wrote: > On 7/23/21 9:52 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> My point is, when we changed the ACCEPT_LICENSE default to @FREE in >> 2019, there was a discussion if we could remove LICENSE="linux-firmware" >> from kernel packages. The conclusion was that we could do so starting >> with version 4.14, because in that version firmware was gone from the >> Linux kernel tree.
>> Now, either our conclusion back then was right, then >=*-sources-4.14 >> are under a free software license, and I don't understand what would be >> the purpose of deblobbing. Could somebody more knowledgeable please >> explain it to me? >> Or our conclusion was wrong, which means that there are still non-free >> files in the kernel tree. Again, could someone explain and show me >> examples of such non-free files? > I think this discussion is not to do be done here. > if you want to discuss about deblob philosophy please open a thread > about this on the FSF mailing list. Sorry for my perseverance, but it affects what we declare as LICENSE of kernel packages, so at least to some degree it _is_ our discussion. According to COPYING and Documentation/process/license-rules.rst the kernel is "provided under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only". Does the FSFLA/Linux-libre project challenge that statement (and if yes, why don't they work with Linux upstream to rectify the situation)? I am still hoping that someone will explain it to me. Ulrich
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
