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 1NSP4E-0005py-1V for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:08:26 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ABE57E09B8 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 06:08:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com (qw-out-1920.google.com [74.125.92.146]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7CFBE090A for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 04:56:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 4so2659556qwk.10 for ; Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:56:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.59.1 with SMTP id j1mr12565122qah.209.1262753766467; Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:56:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.1.102? (CPE00027279f350-CM0016923fcb1e.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.235.229.165]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 7sm3576215qwf.44.2010.01.05.20.56.04 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:56:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B4417D5.3050403@doublecreations.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:55:49 -0500 From: Vincent Launchbury 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo References: <4B3843E2.90800@doublecreations.com> <20091230005035.GA21380@kroah.com> <4B3ABDFE.9050209@doublecreations.com> <20091231044831.GB28130@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20091231044831.GB28130@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 9030746b-9583-4c18-aec1-63087f6c41e9 X-Archives-Hash: 20c0e2fe07aa88403967e086e1264d27 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 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.