On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:24:12AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2005 05:48:55 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
[...]
Great! This license is totally distributable. I'm not sure,
unfortunately,
what counts as equivalent to hexadecimal. I think that's the only
problem.
Andres Salomon wrote:
As I remember, upstream (jgarzik/davem) was not overly interested in such
a patch to tg3. Is this still the case, or are they amenable to such
changes?
Upstream was not interested in legal niceties like including copyright
statements, either. I suppose both are still the
Sven Luther wrote:
The text of the new licence proposal is as follows :
+/* xxx.h: Broadcom tg3 network driver.
+ *
+ * Copyright (c) 2004, 2005 Broadcom Corporation
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU
Sven Luther wrote:
2) distribution as part of a binary module, without necessarily any
copyright notice attached, which would be a pain
Actually, if it's a separate runtime-loaded file (as it is in my current
implementation) I can ship a copyright notice in the same directory.
Although we
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 08:53:44PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
+ * Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware
data
+ * in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this copyright notice is
+ * accompanying it.
Just a
On 5/26/05, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 08:53:44PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
Would we actually be distributing the hexadecimal format, or would we
be distributing the packed binary[1] representation of the hexadecimal
format?
I guess that if there is a
On 5/26/05, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the initrd image, and more plainly the d-i .udebs are in question here.
Is the GPL in the .udeb (or elsewhere in d-i)? If so, the putative
license-on-bundled-bits.txt should go in as well.
Cheers,
- Michael
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Is the GPL in the .udeb (or elsewhere in d-i)?
No.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 08:53:44PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
+ * Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware
data
+ * in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this
Hello all,
It seems our crusade to solve the dubious licencing of firmware inside the
linux kernel source is starting to show is fruits. After the QLogic feedback
Andres Salomon reported in a previous mail, it is now Broadcom which is coming
back to us with a licence proposal.
Keep in mind
Under US law as I understand it (IANAL), the text in my follow-up to
Andres's QLogic thread is cleaner. I would not recommend pretending
that the embedded firmware image is exclusively data; it is a
separately copyrighted work whose bytes are treated as data by the
driver. The driver is part of
On 5/25/05, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would then follow that you need to specify an appropriate licence for
distribution of the non-free firmware blob, which was ok i believe in the
original proposal :
Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware data
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
+ * Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware data
+ * in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this copyright notice is
+ * accompanying it.
Just a minor question here:
Would we actually be distributing the hexadecimal
13 matches
Mail list logo
