Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Binary firmware in the kernel - licensing issues. | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | 06 May 2003 13:44:53 +0100 |
| |
On Maw, 2003-05-06 at 14:28, Simon Kelley wrote: > My current plan is to make separate modules for each firmware image so > that people only need to compile in/load the one they need. > > > > > (Debian as policy will rip the firmware out anyway regardless of what > > Linus does btw) > > Without exception? Time to hit debian-legal, methinks.
Unless the firmware itself includes full source code under the GPL yes. There are rumblings in other places about doing the same because the licensing issues are not clear otherwise.
> > The hotplug interface can be used to handle this. > > > > Bah, more configuration. I want it to just _work_.
For the setup its a case of the existing hotplug scripts being updated which isnt hard and for 2.5 this is currently being kicked around for the general cases.
> So, back to the question: what license for a binary firmware blob is > GPL-compatible?
Try a lawyer, a good one with lots of experience in intellectual property law in the US and EU. linux-kernel only thinks its qualified as a lawyer 8)
Alan
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |