Re: non-free but distributable packages and kernel firmware

2005-04-09 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] dfsg-freedom-of-all-runnable-programs dfsg-freedom-of-all-main-cpu-runnable-programs Euh, what are those two last ones ? They are for users who have decided that they do not care about the freedom of documentation and/or programs that run on

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

2005-04-09 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think the derivative work angle is a red herring. I do not think that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant point is that distribution of the linked

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

2005-04-09 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:31:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: If Debian was at least consistent. Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues than RedHat? It's impossible to treat patents

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

2005-04-09 Thread Raul Miller
It's impossible to treat patents consistently. On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 04:38:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support. It's silly to treat financial risk as being a one

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

2005-04-09 Thread Glenn Maynard
(Henning Makholm, I assume; I seem to be missing the actual message and David's mailer forgot to put a quote header on the original reply): I think the derivative work angle is a red herring. I do not think that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the driver and