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

Jeff Garzik
2005-04-04T20:54:45Z

Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:55:55PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>>Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved
>>>>problem, or the ones discussing it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, there are some legitimate problems with some of the files in
>>>the Linux source base. Last time this came up, the Acenic firmware was
>>>mentioned:
>>>
>>>http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg00078.html
>>>
>>>Seems to me that situation is still not resolved.
>>
>>And it looks like no one cares enough to make the effort to resolve this...
>>
>>I would love an open source acenic firmware.
>
>
> Yep, but in the meantime, let's clearly mark said firmware as
> not-covered-by-the-GPL. In the acenic case it seems to be even easier, as the
> firmware is in a separate acenic_firmware.h file, and it just needs to have
> the proper licencing statement added, saying that it is not covered by the
> GPL, and then giving the information under what licence it is being
> distributed.

Who has meaningfully contacted Alteon (probably "Neterion" now) about
this? What is the progress of that request?

> Jeff, since your name was found in the tg3.c case, and you seem to care about
> this too, what is your take on this proposal ?
>
> Friendly,

Bluntly, Debian is being a pain in the ass ;-)

There will always be non-free firmware to deal with, for key hardware.

Jeff