From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5516138B48 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:44:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7CA3121C048; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:44:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 723C021C028 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:44:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.41]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id D337120E07 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:44:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:44:47 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=9Nbc8vtsmnCdgmE7aVPpktqI9Mg=; b=Eh49hAzkTssQhxHvP31YQJmq6Weg qH50l4tEdzuy6EW5dUnj+FAIIOvAd330YXSOQt1OCVAUwnxLCgmu+38eV4+kF47d 7iXFypf1LrtbBVXIm3c5BjybwLAMFjfAtFczJeZ//0Dxkjs9/Cc20RWodiJdV9h7 FBTIzV9XN7LIb0Q= X-Sasl-enc: vZUE0EmEx+Wl03mjzyTmkjlUKi9yV5VM3YkwcZsBRRrY 1361385887 Received: from localhost (unknown [198.134.93.254]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 68B4A8E09A0; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:44:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:43:22 -0800 From: Greg KH To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: linux-firmware Message-ID: <20130220184322.GA12009@kroah.com> References: <20767.41371.270947.851486@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <5120654B.6050406@gentoo.org> <20768.43798.568305.561675@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <512389BF.9090504@gentoo.org> <5124CCE9.50203@flameeyes.eu> <20130220182232.GA11082@kroah.com> <20130220182514.8755.qmail@stuge.se> 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: <20130220182514.8755.qmail@stuge.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 9ea9d326-1c23-420c-828a-e96d1e939d6c X-Archives-Hash: f226c85c9bd9519a29b14648777f476d On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:25:14PM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > > > If there really are firmware blobs that are only available via git and > > > which cannot be redistributed we might consider whether it makes sense > > > to not support them entirely, or to force them to be masked. > > > > Did anyone actually consider the fact that there should not be > > non-redistributable firmware blobs in the upstream git tree in the > > first place, as it is the thing that is doing the redistributing > > originally? > > I think non-redistributable in this case means "by Gentoo" since that > was identified to be the case for some of the files in the git > repository. Their license allows them to be distributed in > linux-firmware.git, but not elsewhere. Really? What firmware files are that way, I just did a quick scan through the upstream linux-firmware.git tree and didn't see anything that would prevent Gentoo from doing this. What did I miss? thanks, greg k-h