On 5/25/05, Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And so on. QLogic wants to have a conference call w/ me and their legal > dept, as they have questions on BSD vs GPL licensing. I think it would be > good to have someone from d-l on the call as well. Any volunteers? I'd > like to get someone knowledgeable about GPL and BSD licensing issues, > binary firmware images, and w/ some form of legal background.
I'm probably not the person you want, since my opinions don't exactly fit the debian-legal mainstream, and IANAL. But FWIW, I think you would do well to elaborate on why the GPL is not the right license for firmware blobs and to suggest that text to this effect be added to the header of the file containing the firmware blob: This file contains two kinds of content: 1) a firmware image for an embedded processor on QLogic controllers, and 2) instructions for packaging this image within a driver for the Linux kernel and delivering it to the embedded processor. The latter forms part of the Linux kernel and is offered under the same terms as the rest of the Linux kernel, i. e., version 2 (only) of the GNU General Public License. The firmware image itself is not part of the Linux kernel; it is a separately copyrighted work, embedded within the driver solely for reasons of engineering practicality. License of copyright in the firmware image is offered under the following terms: <Whatever> As I read the GPL and the applicable law, this is perfectly clean (IANAL, TINLA); and if you want citations to case law, Nimmer on Copyright, and all that jazz, just ask. Cheers, - Michael
