Re: more files with licenses that aren't GPL-compatible

[Flavio Stanchina <flavio@stanchina.net>]

mdpoole@troilus.org wrote:
> Sure there is: To the extent that there is a real license problem,
> work with the copyright owner(s) for the files and binary blobs to
> resolve the problem.  [...]

Yes, of course that would be fine. I started with the implicit 
assumption that the license could not change, sorry.

This might open another can of worms however. Once you get a binary blob 
into the kernel and you know that it really is code for an embedded 
microprocessor or such, what is the "preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it"? Wouldn't that be source code in whatever 
language that blob is written in? Wouldn't that also require a toolchain 
to build it? MY opinion is that it' much better to get it out of the 
kernel anyway.

> Contrary to your (and SCO's) allegations, kernel gatekeepers
> generally exercise care with respect to new contributions.

I did not allege anything like that. I never doubted that Linus and most 
other maintainers do, in fact, understand legal things quite well, 
contrary to what SCO said or implied several times.

-- 
Ciao, Flavio