Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:47:36PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >Yep, but in the meantime, let's clearly mark said firmware as
> >not-covered-by-the-GPL. In the acenic case it seems to be even easier, as 
> >the
> >firmware is in a separate acenic_firmware.h file, and it just needs to have
> >the proper licencing statement added, saying that it is not covered by the
> >GPL, and then giving the information under what licence it is being
> >distributed.
> 
> Who has meaningfully contacted Alteon (probably "Neterion" now) about 
> this?  What is the progress of that request?

Nobody yet. I plan to do so as time allows though. But how do you respond
about the firmware blobs being declared as GPL covered in the kernel ? Who put
those firmware blobs there, and form where did they came ? 

> >Jeff, since your name was found in the tg3.c case, and you seem to care 
> >about
> >this too, what is your take on this proposal ?
> >
> >Friendly,
> 
> Bluntly, Debian is being a pain in the ass ;-)

Thanks all the same, in this case, it is just me though, who want a clear
solution to this, and you would too, i guess, especially as it is not much
work to do it in the first place, so why is everyone making a problem of this
? 

> There will always be non-free firmware to deal with, for key hardware.

Sure, but then you don't claim they are covered by the GPL as is currently the
case ? And i thought that the whole SCO affaire teached us to be more careful
about this.

It assuredly can't hurt to add a few lines of comments to tg3.c, and since it
is probably (well, 1/3 chance here) you who added said firmware to the tg3.c
file, i guess you are even well placed to at least exclude it from being
GPLed. Is this not a reasonable request ? Which should get a reasonable
answer, and not claims of being a pain in the ass, and other wild fanatical
accusations ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther