On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:56:56 -0300, Humberto Massa wrote: > > Andrew Suffield wrote: > [...] > > >>> The firmware contained herein as keyspan_*.h is > >>> ... > >>> Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of > >>> this firmware image as part of a Linux or other Open > >>> Source operating system kernel in text or binary form > >>> as required. > >>> ... > >>> This firmware may not be modified and may only be > >>> used with Keyspan hardware. Distribution and/or > >>> Modification of the keyspan.c driver which includes > >>> this firmware, in whole or in part, requires the > >>> inclusion of this statement." > > > > > >Finally, one with a real license. It's obviously non-free, > >but I see no reason why it can't be distributed in non-free, > >with the usual provisos about proprietary drivers being > >entirely unsupportable. > > As I said before, it seems to me that is not distributable > /unless/ within a whole copy of the kernel; ie neither in a > kernel-modules-nonfree nor in a keyspan-module-nonfree > packages. >
Hm, I'm not sure I agree with that. It doesn't say it requires a *complete* kernel; nor does it say it requires Linux specifically. We're distributing the kernel in parts; kernel-source-nonfree is definitely part of an open source kernel (albeit just drivers for hardware). I could see this argued both ways. Of course, I can contact them and ask them to modify the license as well. This falls in line w/ Sven's request[0] for an example license to propose to firmware copyright holders that will satisfy the requirements of the kernel, and our non-free distribution. Obviously, something like the BSD license is doable, but the firmware authors seem to want to ensure that the firmware remain unmodified, and/or only be used with their specific hardware. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/04/msg00152.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
