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

Sven Luther
2005-04-05T08:37:55Z

On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
> > that the firmware included in it is *NOT* intented to be under the
> > GPL, so why not say it explicitly ?
>
> I don't think anyone here has disagreed. What almost everyone has said
> however is "so go and do it" -- go do the research, contact the
> copyright holders directly and get the permission to make patches, then
> post them here.

Ok. I have some doubts about doing the work, and it then being rejected and
i did the work first, which is why i asked. It seemed a reasonable thing to
ask, and my analysis of the problem was sound, so why didn't i get a, yeah, go
ahead, instead of this rejection ?

> There is really no point in discussing it here, just get on and do it.

As i said, some may know things about relationship, or lack thereof, with the
copyright holder, i believe that the people who added those firmware blobs are
all reading this here, and it is from them that i wanted feedback, but it
failed to produce that effect.

/me will investigate bk and how to get the information on who signed those
changes off and commited them :)

Friendly,

Sven Luther