On 01/08/2010 12:26 AM, Greg KH wrote:
If the kernel loads a firmware
file that is not free, or if the device itself has a firmware in it that
you can not change so easily, has _nothing_ to do with the license of
the kernel,
I don't think anybody is concerned about the license of the kernel,
Harald van D3k wrote:
Right, which is why at the same time it would be useful to have an
option to not install those files. There's no problem with USE
conditionals in LICENSE; LICENSE=GPL-2 firmware? ( freedist ) or
expanded further would be fine, and simply nuke those files on install
with
On 01/07/2010 01:19 AM, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
All I'm asking for is that users who care about this will be shown an
accurate license,
I think that this really sums this whole thing up. Can you run a
computer with ONLY FOSS on it (firmware to ROMs to hard drive
controlers) - probably
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 01:19:24AM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
Also note that the license of the firmware files do not matter to
almost everyone using the kernel, as almost no one uses those files
anymore, the ones in the linux-firmware package should be used
instead.
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 11:55:49PM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
And note, _I_ placed those images in the kernel image, after consulting
lawyers about this issue, so it's not like I don't know what I am
talking about here.
I'm not questioning whether it's legal to
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 10:57:01AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 11:55:49PM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
And note, _I_ placed those images in the kernel image, after consulting
lawyers about this issue, so it's not like I don't know what I am
talking
Greg KH wrote:
And note, _I_ placed those images in the kernel image, after consulting
lawyers about this issue, so it's not like I don't know what I am
talking about here.
I'm not questioning whether it's legal to distribute non-free firmware
alongside the GPL. I'm merely saying that the
On 12/30/2009 11:48 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Heh, no, it does not, unless your BIOS, and your keyboard firmware, and
your mouse firmware are all under a free license. The only thing
close to this type of machine is the OLPC, and even then, I don't think
all the microcode for the box was ever
On 12/29/2009 07:52 PM, Greg KH wrote:
No, the readme/copying is correct, it covers all of the code that runs
on the processor as one body of work. Firmware blobs are different in
that they do not run in the same processor, and can be of a different
license.
Yes, but they don't cover
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 09:42:06PM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
The fact that some people claim that the firmware blobs somehow violate
the GPLv2 license of the kernel is a claim, not a fact, so please do not
state it as such.
Hi Greg,
Thanks for your reply.
I
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 06:43:47AM -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
On 12/29/2009 07:52 PM, Greg KH wrote:
No, the readme/copying is correct, it covers all of the code that runs
on the processor as one body of work. Firmware blobs are different in
that they do not run in the same processor, and
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 08:51:18PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 06:43:47AM -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
On 12/29/2009 07:52 PM, Greg KH wrote:
No, the readme/copying is correct, it covers all of the code that runs
on the processor as one body of work. Firmware blobs are
В Пнд, 28/12/2009 в 18:41 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan пишет:
I think we can simply follow debian and fedora's lead on this. They
have the lawyers, and
Well, it's possible but not that simple. To do this it's not enough to
compare packages, but files and patches should be compared as well (and
В Втр, 29/12/2009 в 00:24 -0500, Vincent Launchbury пишет:
File a bug with some ebuilds.
It looks like somebody already has. See
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=266157. I tested the latest
ebuild, and it worked fine (see comment #59.) What would have to be
done to get it in the main
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:02:14PM +0300, Peter Volkov wrote:
В Втр, 29/12/2009 в 00:24 -0500, Vincent Launchbury пишет:
File a bug with some ebuilds.
It looks like somebody already has. See
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=266157. I tested the latest
ebuild, and it worked fine
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 06:32:20PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
Can we have USE-deps inside the LICENSE block then?
Yes.
~harring
pgphPPJZqEGs2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:36:34AM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
1) Not all of the licenses are completely accurate. For example, the
Linux kernels are listed as soley GPL-2, yet they contain blobs of
non-free firmware.
The fact that some people claim that the firmware blobs somehow violate
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 08:16:22PM -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
On 12/28/2009 05:53 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
You're wrong there. The kernel does contain additional licenses, and
EXPLICITLY mentions them. Go and read 'firmware/WHENCE'.
The licenses listed therein range from use-permitted
Greg KH wrote:
The fact that some people claim that the firmware blobs somehow violate
the GPLv2 license of the kernel is a claim, not a fact, so please do not
state it as such.
Hi Greg,
Thanks for your reply.
I think you misunderstood my point though. I wasn't saying that the
firmware
Le 28/12/2009 06:36, Vincent Launchbury a écrit :
Hi,
I recently emailed the Gentoo PR team, voicing my concerns about the
amount of non-free software within Gentoo. I got an interesting response
from Sebastian Pipping, who said that while Gentoo is all about choice,
including the choice to
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:36:34 -0500
Vincent Launchbury vinc...@doublecreations.com wrote:
Also relating to this, what is freedist? The package app-text/dos2unix
lists 'freedist' as its license, and /usr/portage/licenses/freedist
says only Freely Distributable. Several other packages do this,
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Rémi Cardona r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Le 28/12/2009 06:36, Vincent Launchbury a écrit :
1) Not all of the licenses are completely accurate. For example, the
Linux kernels are listed as soley GPL-2, yet they contain blobs of
non-free firmware.
Indeed, that's a
Vincent Launchbury wrote:
Hi,
I recently emailed the Gentoo PR team, voicing my concerns about the
amount of non-free software within Gentoo. I got an interesting response
from Sebastian Pipping, who said that while Gentoo is all about choice,
including the choice to install non-free software,
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:36:34AM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
1) Not all of the licenses are completely accurate. For example, the
Linux kernels are listed as soley GPL-2, yet they contain blobs of
non-free firmware. Perhaps a general-purpose not-free license could be
appended to such
On 12/28/2009 01:56 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
Actually, this is a case where the license on the ebuild is wrong, not
the license group. The kernel ebuilds should have GPL-2 and something
else, and by definition should not pass @FSF-APPROVED alone.
Is this appropriate? The kernel sources
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 05:15:06PM -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
On 12/28/2009 01:56 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
Actually, this is a case where the license on the ebuild is wrong, not
the license group. The kernel ebuilds should have GPL-2 and something
else, and by definition should not pass
On 12/28/2009 05:53 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
You're wrong there. The kernel does contain additional licenses, and
EXPLICITLY mentions them. Go and read 'firmware/WHENCE'.
The licenses listed therein range from use-permitted only
no-modification, to GPL-compliant and BSD-like.
I stand
Rémi Cardona wrote:
Unless people dedicate time and effort, ACCEPT_LICENSE is useless.
Well, I think an incomplete tool is better than no tool at all. Even
though it's far from perfect, I still found it very useful to create a
free system. I'm certainly interested in helping to improve it.
I'd
Hi,
I recently emailed the Gentoo PR team, voicing my concerns about the
amount of non-free software within Gentoo. I got an interesting response
from Sebastian Pipping, who said that while Gentoo is all about choice,
including the choice to install non-free software, the project is
interested in
29 matches
Mail list logo
