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

Sven Luther
2005-04-05T09:44:35Z

On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 10:30:47AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
> > > weren't going to do it, but if you want to then go ahead. I think people
> > > are just fed up of people bringing up the issue and then failing to do
> > > anything about it -- so prove them wrong ;-)
> >
> > Actually patches to add firmware loader support to tg3 got rejected.
> >
> > Which is think is very unfortunately as we set the highlevel goal to
> > move drivers over to it.
>
> I didn't know that -- you are right that it is unfortunate.
>
> I thought Sven was talking (at least short term) about adding copyright
> statements/exemptions/something to the binary blobs where they are now.

Yes, indeed, i am searching for a short-time clarification, but in the long
term the separate firmware solution is indeed better, altough more work and
more involved.

That said, the work to identify the firmware blobs and clarify their
copyright/licencing situation is common for both alternatives.

Friendly,

Sven Luther