Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

["Harald van Dijk" <truedfx@gentoo.org>]

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 different in
> >> that they do not run in the same processor, and can be of a different
> >> license.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, but they don't cover everything in the tarball.  If I want to copy the 
> > tarball, then I need to comply with the distribution license of the 
> > tarball.  That license isn't clearly advertised.  It is a mix of a number 
> > of licenses from GPL v2 to allowed-to-copy-without-modifications.
> 
> No, you can copy that tarball just fine, and when you _distribute_ it,
> the GPLv2 applies to it.

Then I can distribute modified versions of the tarball, with altered
firmware, in direct violation of the license granted for that firmware,
just because it's allowed by the GPL? Seriously, you're saying the
license of the firmware doesn't matter.

> > The processor that the software runs on is fairly irrelevant.
> 
> Not true at all, why would you think that?  Since when does a license
> cross a processor boundry?

When I copy the Linux kernel sources, all files are copied by a single
processor. This isn't about running the kernel.

> > In any case, I'm sure the kernel team will update the ebuild license string 
> > appropriately - this is more of a debate for the LKML.  I just don't think 
> > that they've done a good job with it.  Others are welcome to hold differing 
> > opinions.  :)
> 
> You don't think the gentoo kernel team (of which I think I'm the
> longest-term member), or the Linux kernel developers (of which I am the
> actual person who put those images in the kernel back in the late
> 1990's after consulting many lawers, and Linus, on the issue) are doing
> a good job with this?

Please stop avoiding the issue. No one is saying the firmware is in
conflict with the GPL, or that distribution of the kernel is illegal.
The way it's distributed is fine. It's just not reflected properly in
Gentoo.