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

2005-04-04 Thread Jeff Garzik
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

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

2005-04-04 Thread Jeff Garzik
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

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

2005-04-05 Thread Jeff Garzik
Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:28:07AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: One of the sticking points will be how people get the firmware; I can see the point of a kernel-distributable-firmware project related to the kernel (say on kernel.org) which would provide a nice collection

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

2005-04-05 Thread Jeff Garzik
Humberto Massa wrote: But, the question made here was a subtler one and you are all biting around the bush: there *are* some misrepresentations of licenses to the firmware blobs in the kernel (-- ok, *if* you consider that hex dumps are not source code). What Sven asked was: Hey, can I state

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

2005-04-07 Thread Jeff Garzik
Eric W. Biederman wrote: Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_ weren't going to do it, but if you