Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Aug 31, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco trolled again. FYI, no serious person disagrees with this
interpretation.
Except every other distribution, which usually retain real lawyers
to advise them
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joe Smith wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. Module and firmware in free. (The firmware can be compiled into the
module, or can be loaded from a file.)
2. Module in free, firmware in nonfree, loaded
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Aug 31, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco trolled again. FYI, no serious person disagrees with this
interpretation.
Except every other distribution, which usually retain real lawyers
to advise them about potential problems like this
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 12:15:20AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I'd love to see a legal opinion from the SPI lawyers regarding who would be
liable if Debian did commit copyright infringment (or whatever) and someone
sued.
FWIW, there's a few things I'd love to see legal opinions on too,
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Should the ftpmasters, who have even less legal expertise,
Judging by some of the nonsense that debian-legal is typically riddled with,
It's generally quite easy to spot the
On Aug 31, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco trolled again. FYI, no serious person disagrees with this
interpretation.
Except every other distribution, which usually retain real lawyers
to advise them about potential problems like this instead of relying
on mailing lists posts.
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 07:17:47PM -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
minefield. That is higher
On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
technically does not permit redistribution. At least 53 blobs have this
problem. Many of them are licensed under the GPL, but without source code
provided. Since the
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 09:27:21AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
technically does not permit redistribution. At least 53 blobs have this
problem. Many of them are
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 09:00:27AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 07:17:47PM -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Debian needs to make a
Hello,
On Wed, 30.08.2006 at 09:27:21 +0200, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
technically does not permit redistribution. At least 53 blobs have this
problem.
Op wo, 30-08-2006 te 17:16 +0200, schreef Toni Mueller:
Hello,
On Wed, 30.08.2006 at 09:27:21 +0200, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
technically does not
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 05:16:29PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, 30.08.2006 at 09:27:21 +0200, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
technically
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 09:27:21AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
technically does not permit
Joe Smith wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 09:27:21AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
technically
Sven Luther wrote:
Since the firmware blobs are not derivative works of the kernel, but
constitute mere agregation in the same binary format, the authors of other
pieces of GPLed code fo the linux kernel cannot even sue us for
distributing the kernel code with those GPL-violating binary
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
minefield. That is higher priority than the entire discussion going on
right now, because it determines whether Debian will distribute
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:18:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Since the firmware blobs are not derivative works of the kernel, but
constitute mere agregation in the same binary format, the authors of other
pieces of GPLed code fo the linux kernel cannot even sue us
Toni Mueller wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, 30.08.2006 at 09:27:21 +0200, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
technically does not permit redistribution. At least 53
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
minefield. That is higher priority than the entire discussion going on
right now,
[Nathanael Nerode]
So -- point me to the correct parts of the installer. I don't know
where to find this anna.
svn://svn.debian.org/d-i/trunk/packages/anna
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
snip
Actually, letting an overworked team of four with (to my knowledge) zero
legal expertise settle questions of legal liability is pretty absurd too.
They are the team responsible for vetting the
Hi,
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
6c557439-9c21-4eec-ad6c-e6384fab56a8
[ ] Choice 1: Release etch on time
[ 1 ] Choice 2: Do not ship sourceless firmware in main
[ ] Choice 3: Support hardware that requires sourceless firmware
[ ] Choice 4: None of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luk Claes wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
6c557439-9c21-4eec-ad6c-e6384fab56a8
[ 1 ] Choice 1: Release etch on time
[ 3 ] Choice 2: Do not ship sourceless firmware in main
[ 2 ] Choice 3: Support
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 05:37:23 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
[ x ] Choice 5: Ship *BLOBs* (does *not* mean closed-source
drivers like nvidia) that can be legally
redistributed, do not ship BLOBs that can
not be legally redistributed.
Yes, I know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Lamb wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 05:37:23 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
[ x ] Choice 5: Ship *BLOBs* (does *not* mean closed-source
drivers like nvidia) that can be legally
redistributed, do not ship BLOBs that
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 01:23:48PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
I disagree, or I am not understanding the difference between the two.
FSF/GNU devotees would much prefer to use a free BIOS[0] or EEPROM
code if they had a choice imho.
Yes, and there is a choice, partly already working, partly in the
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luk Claes wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
6c557439-9c21-4eec-ad6c-e6384fab56a8
[ 1 ] Choice 1: Release etch on time
[ 3 ] Choice 2: Do not ship sourceless firmware in main
[ 2
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
minefield. That is higher priority than the entire discussion going on
right now, because it determines whether Debian will distribute these 53
BLOBs *at
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 07:17:47PM -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
minefield. That is higher priority than the entire discussion going on
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
6c557439-9c21-4eec-ad6c-e6384fab56a8
[ 1 ] Choice 1: Release etch on time
[ 3 ] Choice 2: Do not ship sourceless firmware in main
[ 2 ] Choice 3: Support hardware that requires sourceless firmware
[ ] Choice 4: None of the
31 matches
Mail list logo
