> it must be because of my poor English but I don't understand why Intel's > firmware is NNF (non-free firmware). The firmware is GPL licensed.
No it is not. > I > don't exactly know what a 'contractual obligation' (man ipw(4)) is in > this context (maybe some dutch-man can explain that to me?). Rules you did not have to follow beforehands. > Intel's > website > (http://support.intel.com/support/wireless/wlan/sb/cs-016675.htm) > says that the end user should be noticed that the software may be > covered by a variety of licenses. Isn't that a new rule you did not have to follow before? > But that souldn't make software non- > free? That most positively IS a new rule you did not have to follow before, so it IS a reduction in your freedom. > So, what is that about the 'contractual obligation'? ANY rule which reduces your rights is unacceptable, especially when the full consequences of such a set of rules may be unclear -- which it always is. Normal free software has no 'contract law' issues, because it is simply given away under "copyright law with almost all author's rights revoked". Contract law works differently, because it is based more on the principle of "you got something, now you have to give something back". The minute you see a URL like that explaining things in such a way, you should realize that the addition of 'rules' means you are in a different legal system. Copyright has no way to apply such rules, therefore it is not free. And none of this is unobvious; it's been discussed many times in other places. Just because you don't consider what you read on that site to be a problem, does not mean that others are ok with it. We stand up for everyone, not just one guy.
