Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: linux-firmware

[Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>]

>>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013, Rick \"Zero Chaos\" Farina wrote:

> On 02/20/2013 02:55 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:

> I am going to respond here because it makes the most sense to me.

>> I mostly agree. However, there are not two, but three classes of
>> licenses for firmware images:
>> 
>> 1. Free software
>> 2. Non-free, but can be redistributed
>> 3. Cannot be redistributed
>> 
>> The split between 2 and 3 is the more important one, because we cannot
>> mirror things under 3.

> I completely agree. I will HAPPILY divide the ebuild up with a nonfree
> (or other suggested SANE use flag) to denote the difference between 1
> and 2.  None of this is under contest, this choice is all but too easy.
> Depending on the licensing issues which arise I may even add in a
> separate ebuild.

> The issue come in with number 3.  Adding a bindist use flag for the
> - -9999 ebuild seems sane since it pulls from git and we don't have to
> redist it, but is is possible to RESTRICT="bindist? bindist" ?

Eh, what? You want to exclude the non-redistributable firmware from
binpkgs build by the user? I.e. USE="-bindist" would include
everything but USE="bindist" wouldn't? IIUC, you don't need an
additional RESTRICT then.

> Anyone volunteering to tear through this licensing mess and start
> breaking things into groups?

Does the WHENCE cover everything that is currently included in your
tarball?

Ulrich