On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:21:18AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 00:54, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > #include <hallo.h> > > * Joe Wreschnig [Tue, Jun 15 2004, 09:01:52PM]: > > > > > > So, problem resolved. No need to remove anything. > > > > > > At best that solves a third of the problem. What about all the other > > > copyright holders of the kernel, have they agreed to link with the > > > non-GPLd code? (Before someone tells me kernel developers don't care, or > > > "this isn't linking", [0]) And once the copyright issue is dealt with, > > > there's still the issue of meeting the DFSG. > > > > What exactly are you trying to proove with the mentioned link? > > People who hold copyrights on the Linux kernel view distribution of the > kernel with proprietary firmware to be a violation of their license. > Period. This is a fact: _Copyright holders of material Debian is > distributing believe we are doing so in violation of the license they > have granted us_. This is a serious problem, both in terms of BTS > severity and most legal codes.
Who actually objects to this that has contributed signifigant code to the kernel? Is there a list, and what they have contributed? > > Debian has a policy of trying to honor the copyright holder's > interpretation of a license, both because we want to avoid lawsuits, and > because (I like to think) we like to be nice to the developers whose > software we distribute. In some really blatantly stupid cases like SCO, > we rebut them. But I don't think Adam's case is stupid, and you're
