On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 01:13:36PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 12:55]:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It seems rather clear that those source files are just machine code
for the device firmware, and as such, are not the prefered form
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If the binary blob was really the source file, then it's fine. For
these so-called GPLed binaries, we should ask the copyright
holders if they were *really* written as binary blobs. If they say
yes, let's believe them. If they say no, then the binaries are
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 01:45:22AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
It seems the following files of the qla2xxx driver contain non-free
firmware:
I presume you're objecting to these firmware on the basis that they
are being distributed as machine code.
I
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It seems rather clear that those source files are just machine code
for the device firmware, and as such, are not the prefered form for
modification.
Agreed. So the files are not DFSG-free.
That pretty much precludes the linking of that code with the rest of
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 12:55]:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It seems rather clear that those source files are just machine code
for the device firmware, and as such, are not the prefered form for
modification.
Agreed. So the files are not DFSG-free.
Since
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 12:55]:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It seems rather clear that those source files are just machine code
for the device firmware, and as such, are not the prefered form for
modification.
Agreed. So the files are not
6 matches
Mail list logo
