Hi all!
I have just packaged a driver for wifi cards. The driver is licensed
under GPL, but the cards needs a non-free firmware to be uploaded in
order to work.
I don't know in which section the driver should go? main or contrib. I
have been told that the driver does not need any firmware, b
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:08:25 +0200 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> I don't know in which section the driver should go? main or contrib. I
> have been told that the driver does not need any firmware, but the
> card does.
Probably the right question to ask is: is there any chance to use the
driver without
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>Here's a case that I'd remembered vaguely but havn't been able to find
>again
>until now:
>
>http://
Martin Braure de Calignon wrote:
> I wanted to know if the binary files in the
> eagle-usb-{utils,data,source} package are free.
No.
> When I get the source of the package (apt-get source), there is a
> LICENSE file in the root directory which says that the package is GPL.
> But in the eagle-us
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I have just packaged a driver for wifi cards. The driver is licensed
> under GPL, but the cards needs a non-free firmware to be uploaded in
> order to work.
>
> I don't know in which section the driver should go? main or contrib. I
> have been told that the dr
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>The trademark rights are entirely separate, and there's no reason for
>>>Debian to license them in any way other than "Free for use if there's
>>>no confusion with Debian, either because they refer to Debian or
>>>because th
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the driver does not provide any significant functionality without the
> firmware, it belongs in contrib.
>
> If there are some cards which the driver drives which work without the
> firmware, it can go in main.
Nowadays very few drivers will work
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Please note that I did not say that a work is non-free if it can be
>>transformed to contain a trademarked item, any more than a work is
>>non-free if it can be transformed to contain a copyrighted work to which
>>we don't have a Fr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I have just packaged a driver for wifi cards. The driver is licensed
>under GPL, but the cards needs a non-free firmware to be uploaded in
>order to work.
I will quote from policy 2.2.2:
Examples of packages which would be included in _contrib_ or
_non-US/co
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Probably the right question to ask is: is there any chance to use the
>driver without touching the non-free firmware (nor any other non-free
>stuff, for that matters)?
Can you quote which part of the policy describes this criteria?
--
ciao,
Marco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>If the driver does not provide any significant functionality without the
>firmware, it belongs in contrib.
The driver provides all of its functionality without the firmware, the
firmware never becomes part of the driver. The hardware device may or
may not provide useful f
Josh Triplett wrote:
Similarly, the logo/"logo image" is used to identify Debian as Debian;
it could be argued (and is currently being argued by many) that we need
a license which prohibits those uses we find "undesirable", such as use
by competing (or even friendly) distributions. Again, this
Josh Triplett wrote:
That's a huge leap, and I seriously doubt it was intended by the
drafters of DFSG4. I would argue very strongly against that
interpretation. A name is just that, a name: some text moniker that
identifies a project. "GCC", "grub", "Linux", and "Apache" are all
names. A lo
On Mon, 2004-11-10 at 01:50 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >Probably the right question to ask is: is there any chance to use the
> >driver without touching the non-free firmware (nor any other non-free
> >stuff, for that matters)?
> Can you quote which part of the policy describes this criteria?
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for your answer, I have a mail from one of the developper of this
software :
There's a wiki url to see about that :
http://dev.eagle-usb.org/wakka.php?wiki=DeveloppementGPL
It seems to me (Benoit Audouard) that you incorrectly inferred that we
want to change licen
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>> That's a huge leap, and I seriously doubt it was intended by the
>> drafters of DFSG4. I would argue very strongly against that
>> interpretation. A name is just that, a name: some text moniker that
>> identifies a project. "GCC", "grub", "L
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 03:51:11PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> I strongly disagree with that, as I do with anything other than a set of
> words being called a name.
Why should this be an issue?
It's clear that trademarks serve an identification role. We interpret
the DFSG according to its spir
But trademarks don't cover works. Your whole message treats
trademarks as a funny sort of copyright which sometimes doesn't follow
chains of derivation. They aren't. They're a completely different
beast.
For example, your model doesn't deal at all with the fact that we have
the string "IBM" pac
18 matches
Mail list logo
