From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Hasler Subject: Re: Binary-only firmware covered by the GPL? Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:39:33 -0600 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <871xngbd4a.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org> References: <20040325082949.GA3376@gondor.apana.org.au> <20040325220803.GZ16746@fs.tum.de> <40635DD9.8090809@pobox.com> <20040326003339.GD25059@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <81ptb0wh45.wl@omega.webmasters.gr.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from sa-2.airstreamcomm.net ([64.33.192.162]:41997 "EHLO sa-2.airstreamcomm.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263812AbUCZBdu (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Mar 2004 20:33:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: <81ptb0wh45.wl@omega.webmasters.gr.jp> (GOTO Masanori's message of "Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:07:38 +0900") List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: 239952@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org GOTO Masanori writes: > But think about: why can we distribute assembler only code in linux > kernel? Was it not written in assembler? If so, there is no problem. > If they insist this source code is GPL, then I think this code is covered > under GPL at least for this case. If it's GPL, then we can derive the > newer firmware code from this original ql2100_fw.c freely. I don't follow you. What source code? -- John Hasler john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI