>>>>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Alec Warner wrote: > Lets not re-invent the wheel here:
> Debian has free and non-free packages. > http://packages.debian.org/sid/firmware-linux > # free copyright > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/f/firmware-free/firmware-free_3.2/firmware-linux-free.copyright > # nonfree copyright > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-nonfree_0.36+wheezy.1/firmware-linux-nonfree.copyright > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/linux-firmware.git/tree/linux-firmware.spec > Specifically: > License: GPL+ and GPLv2+ and MIT and Redistributable, no modification > permitted > It looks like OpenSuse has split packages. Most distros are debian or > redhat based these days. > We can easily have a firmware package that is USE="nonfree" and only > install the libre firmware, ala debian. This also fixes 'the license > issue' because if people want ACCEPT_LICENSE=@OSI-APPROVED they just > need to turn the nonfree flag off. > None of this is rocket science, and the work has likely already been > done by others, so just take it and go. I mostly agree. However, there are not two, but three classes of licenses for firmware images: 1. Free software 2. Non-free, but can be redistributed 3. Cannot be redistributed The split between 2 and 3 is the more important one, because we cannot mirror things under 3. Ulrich
