From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NScKU-0002PV-5o for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:18:06 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C5116E0C25 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 20:18:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from coco.kroah.org (kroah.org [198.145.64.141]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DA96E092F for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 18:59:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (c-98-246-45-209.hsd1.or.comcast.net [98.246.45.209]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by coco.kroah.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AFDF048665 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:59:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:57:25 -0800 From: Greg KH To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo Message-ID: <20100106185725.GA4033@kroah.com> References: <4B3843E2.90800@doublecreations.com> <20091230005035.GA21380@kroah.com> <4B3ABDFE.9050209@doublecreations.com> <20091231044831.GB28130@kroah.com> <4B4417D5.3050403@doublecreations.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B4417D5.3050403@doublecreations.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Archives-Salt: e51ec3fb-4c9c-40e2-bd14-6387331f3e5c X-Archives-Hash: f82421ed0d477217ea0123d39ae9e272 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 distribute non-free firmware > alongside the GPL. I'm merely saying that the firmware _is_ non-free, > which should be reflected by the ebuild licenses. So you are saying that the license for the kernel should show the license for all of the different firmware files as well? That would get pretty unusable, and keep the kernel from being able to be installed on anyone's machine that didn't want such licenses, right? 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. So as we are a source-based distro, if you object to those firmware licenses, just don't build them in your kernel builds. But to expect to list all of them as the license for the whole kernel package, that's not a workable solution as far as I can see. > > So it's a pointless effort. > > To you maybe, but it's important to some. Note that updating the > licenses would only affect those with strict ACCEPT_LICENSE settings > anyway. I don't understand why you'd oppose the change. So you want anyone with such strict settings to not be able to install the kernel package at all? If so, what kernel do you want them to be able to use? :) thanks, greg k-h