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

[Humberto Massa]

Oliver Neukum wrote:

>  As this has been discussed numerous times and consensus never
>  achieved and is unlikely to be achieved, I suggest that you keep this
>  discussion internal to Debian until at least you have patches which
>  can be evaluated and discussed.  Until then Debian may do to its
>  kernel whatever it pleases and should be prepared to explain to its
>  users why it removed or altered drivers.
>
>  Regards Oliver

Hi, Oliver.

You seemed to answer my e-mail without reading it; what I was explaining 
in it was: this is not a matter of patches, but of asking Where are the 
copyrights notices, Who are the copyright owners, and Which license are 
the firmwares under, and AFTER that, patching what should be patched.

Those three questions (Where, Who, Which) can only be answered by the 
kernel maintainers, and this is in *NO* way a Debian-only discussion. As 
I mentioned before, kernel.org kernel tree is, as of today, non-free and 
undistributable IMHO.

HTH,
Massa



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/