From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrian Bunk Subject: Re: Binary-only firmware covered by the GPL? Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:47:07 +0100 Message-ID: <20040325224706.GE16746@fs.tum.de> References: <20040325082949.GA3376@gondor.apana.org.au> <20040325220803.GZ16746@fs.tum.de> <40635DD9.8090809@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40635DD9.8090809@pobox.com> Resent-Message-ID: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: To: Jeff Garzik Cc: 239952@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 05:31:53PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Well IANAL, but it seems not so cut-n-dried, at least. > > Firmware is a program that executes on another processor, so no linking > is taking place at all. It is analagous to shipping a binary-only > program in your initrd, IMO. My point in this mail was a bit "besides the main firmware discussion": I was not asking whether it's OK to ship this file in the kernel sources, I was asking whether the contents of the file is really under the GPL as stated in the header of this file if it contains this binary code. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed