From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 25 May 2001 02:31:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 25 May 2001 02:31:20 -0400 Received: from vitelus.com ([64.81.36.147]:28939 "EHLO vitelus.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 25 May 2001 02:31:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 23:31:11 -0700 From: Aaron Lehmann To: Matthew Jacob Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Copyright infringement in linux/drivers/usb/serial/keyspan*fw.h Message-ID: <20010524233111.F23155@vitelus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 11:26:20PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote: > Sure- that's not BSD. You were speaking about all kinds of firmware, at least > I thought you were. Must be too short on sleep. Yes, I am. New-style BSD licenses are compatible with the GPL. As long as a piece of firmware contains source (which I discussed in a previous post; see the GPL for the relevent defenition of source code) and is under a GPL-compatible license it should be fine (excepting further issues like patents. In the case of the keyspan drivers, the source code is not distributed and the license is not free, nor GPL-compatible. I hear steps are going towards resolving this, which is excellent. My other concern is what the general policy towards these non-free firmware images is/should be. I know that a lot of firmware exists in advansys.c, and there are probably many more occurances of binary-only firmware throughout the kernel.