From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Hasler Subject: Re: Binary-only firmware covered by the GPL? Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 07:59:19 -0600 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <87brmjaevc.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> <4063EFA5.5070001@stesmi.com> <200403260912.i2Q9CdLU000531@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from sa-2.airstreamcomm.net ([64.33.192.162]:8459 "EHLO sa-2.airstreamcomm.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263843AbUCZNxF (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Mar 2004 08:53:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200403260912.i2Q9CdLU000531@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> (John Bradford's message of "Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:12:39 GMT") 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 John Bradford writes: > Then why didn't the original programmer leave a patch space to allow for > such modifications? Surely that could be considered part of the > 'preferred form'. It would be the 'preferred form' if and only if it's the form in which he wrote it, patch space or no. -- John Hasler john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI