Here's the thread in which RMS replied to my previous post. On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 11:02 -0500, Richard M Stallman wrote: > Up to this point it looks like kfv volunteers have marked such files as > "No license, so assumed to be GPLv2". Now we may have to report them as > freedom bugs -- and re-check sections which were previously certified > free. > > That's whaty I think. > > I'll wait a reality check before starting to file bug reports. > > I do not understand. What is the "reality check" that you're > waiting for, and who is doing it?
... and here is where we get to the reality check. What does the gNewSense users list think? Do we have any clear basis on which to argue that copyrighted, unlicensed files within the gNewSense kernel are free? For example, are files copyrighted by Linus Torvalds clearly free since the kernel as a whole is released by him under GPLv2? What about other contributors, like the copyright holders for arch/x86/ia32/sys-ia32.c: * Copyright (C) 2000 VA Linux Co * Copyright (C) 2000 Don Dugger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Copyright (C) 1999 Arun Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Copyright (C) 1997,1998 Jakub Jelinek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) * Copyright (C) 1997 David S. Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) * Copyright (C) 2000 Hewlett-Packard Co. * Copyright (C) 2000 David Mosberger-Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002 Andi Kleen, SuSE Labs (x86-64 port) If we do have to file bugs, and the rate at which I've found them in arch/x86 applies to the entire kernel, then we're talking about approximately 8,000 kernel freedom bug reports for copyrighted but unlicensed files. I don't know if this concern also applies to previously certified packages in main -- but it could. _______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
