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

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 09:34:44AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 06 avril 2005 à 02:10 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
> > > It merely depends on the definition of "aggregation". I'd say that two
> > > works that are only aggregated can be easily distinguished and
> > > separated. This is not the case for a binary kernel module, from which
> > > you cannot easily extract the firmware and code parts.
> > 
> > Josselin, please read the thread i linked to in debian-legal, and as nobody
> > really gave reason to oppose it, i believe we have consensus that those
> > firmware blobs constitute mere agregation, provided they are clearly
> > identified and properly licenced, which they are not always.
> 
> The fact that nobody cared to answer you shouldn't be considered as any
> kind of approval for your sayings.

There were a couple of replies, but if you are going to argue this, please
read the analysis i made, and reply to it. Read in particular :

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00288.html

Which contains a more formal analysis from Humberto Massa.

So, given that this thread together with the GPLed firmware flasher thread got
a respectable amount of replies, i believe we can claim consensus, and this is
something the debian-kernel team has been acting upon, and i believe even
aknowledged by the release managers and ftp-masters.

If you have strong evidence that this is not the case, it would really have
been nice to comment on it before the kernel team (not only me which you may
dislike for past dealings or whatever) waste effort on something which is
wrong in the first place, and i commend you to participate in the above thread
asap, voicing your concerns (or remain silent forever thereafter :).

Friendly,

Sven Luther