On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 01:13:36PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 12:55]:
> > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > It seems rather clear that those "source" files are just machine code
> > > for the device firmware, and as such, are not the pref
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If the binary blob was really the source file, then it's fine. For
these so-called "GPLed" binaries, we should ask the copyright
holders if they were *really* written as binary blobs. If they say
"yes", let's believe them. If they say "no", then the binaries are
undi
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 12:55]:
>>Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>It seems rather clear that those "source" files are just machine code
>>>for the device firmware, and as such, are not the prefered form for
>>>modification.
>
>>Agreed. So the
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 12:55]:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > It seems rather clear that those "source" files are just machine code
> > for the device firmware, and as such, are not the prefered form for
> > modification.
> Agreed. So the files are not DFSG-fr
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It seems rather clear that those "source" files are just machine code
> for the device firmware, and as such, are not the prefered form for
> modification.
Agreed. So the files are not DFSG-free.
> That pretty much precludes the linking of that code with the
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 01:45:22AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > It seems the following files of the qla2xxx driver contain non-free
> > firmware:
>
> I presume you're objecting to these firmware on the basis that they
> are being distributed as machine cod
6 matches
Mail list logo
