Re: This is [Re:] How to improve the quality of the kernel[?].

x kernel team's workflow are the ones who are going to need to do the heavy lifting here. Don Armstrong -- N: Why should I believe that?" B: Because it's a fact." N: Fact?" B: F, A, C, T... fact" N: So you're saying that I should believe it because it's true. That's your arg

Re: This is [Re:] How to improve the quality of the kernel[?].

the heavy lifting here. Don Armstrong -- N: Why should I believe that? B: Because it's a fact. N: Fact? B: F, A, C, T... fact N: So you're saying that I should believe it because it's true. That's your argument? B: It IS true. -- Ploy http://www.mediacampaign.org/multimedia/Ploy.MPG http

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

(Inventing licensing text is quite often very hazardous to your health.) Don Armstrong 1: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php -- Build a fire for a man, an he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. -- Jules Bean http://www.don

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

be extracted I'd instead suggest applying a pre-existing license like MIT[1] to the firmware portion of the code file, rather than inventing your own licensing text that only partially deals with the problem(s) at issue. (Inventing licensing text is quite often very hazardous to your health.) Don Armstrong