Sven Luther wrote: > On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:52:20AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: >> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060108 11:12]: >> > There where two fully independent issues here : >> > >> > 1) some (many) of those firmware using modules had a sloppy licencing >> > situation, which meant the compiled kernels where indeed >> > non-distributable. >> > >> > 2) those firmware blurbs come without source, and are thus non-free. >> > >> > We where working to solve 1), since without that, it was not even >> > possible to distribute these non-free firmwares from even non-free. I >> > think once this is solved the plan was to : >> > >> > 1) either make those drivers be able to load the firmware from an >> > external file, which we could then include in the initramfs from a >> > non-free source.
For instance, now that the tg3 firmware is under a distributable license, with my tg3 patch reinstituted the firmware for specialized tg3 cards would simply be three files which go in a specific place in the directory tree and are picked up by hotplug/udev. >> > 2) remove those drivers entirely from the main linux-2.6, and have >> > them distributed from the linux-nonfree-2.6 package from our non-free >> > section. >> >> This matches with what I remember. >> Well, there might be cases where the binary blob is enough, but I think >> we agree that >> a) this is probably the exception and not the rule, and >> b) this requires a case-per-case-inspection. > > And how exactly can you guarantee this is the case without being the guy > who wrote the code, and even so, how could we be sure to thrust such a guy > claiming that it is the ultimate source code ? I'm willing to accept a claim from the guy who wrote the code. However, as a debian-legal regular, I can honestly say that that situation has not come up even *once* yet. > The main problem is one of ressources, and we need a single person who can > devote time and effort to follow up on all those drivers, and see if the > firmware can be removed from them or not. Right now everyone is focused > on other stuff. I volunteer. But I need to know that the debian-kernel team iss willing to *accept* my volunteering. That means being willing to revive the fully functional tg3 firmware loading patch which was already included in earlier driver versions. Now that the tg3 firmware is under a distributable license, I can package it for non-free, no problem. >> > I suppose the right way to solve this (doing 1) is another matter and >> > more of the area of upstream work than debian work, it is the better >> > solution though, not sure if it would be ready for the etch timeframe >> > though. >> >> The question of sloppy licenses is indeed an upstream issue - however, >> that doesn't mean we can shut our eyes when we come over such an issue. >> The DFSG-freeness is our own issue. > > Nope, upstream didn't care about sloppy licence, the upstream issue is to > have the firmware removed from the driver and provide infrastructure to > load it from initramfs. > > But the real problem is we are all volunteers, and if nobody has the will > to work on this, what can you do ? I do have the will! > And if those more likely to work on > this are not convinced by the non-freeness or do not care ... Or if those who do have the will to work on it find themselves obstructed by those who don't.... :-( -- ksig --random| -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]