[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Am Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 17:01 schrieb Humberto Massa:
> Oliver Neukum wrote:
> >
> > As this has been discussed numerous times and consensus never
> > achieved and is unlikely to be achieved, I suggest that you keep this
> > discussion internal to Debian until at least you have patches which
> > can be evaluated and discussed. Until then Debian may do to its
> > kernel whatever it pleases and should be prepared to explain to its
> > users why it removed or altered drivers.
> >
> > Regards Oliver
> >
> Hi, Oliver.
> You seemed to answer my e-mail without reading it; what I was explaining
> in it was: this is not a matter of patches, but of asking Where are the
> copyrights notices, Who are the copyright owners, and Which license are
> the firmwares under, and AFTER that, patching what should be patched.
> Those three questions (Where, Who, Which) can only be answered by the
> kernel maintainers, and this is in *NO* way a Debian-only discussion. As
> I mentioned before, kernel tree is, as of today, non-free and
> undistributable IMHO.

Those who care got you after the second message at the latest.
Anything more just annoys people. Some even pay for their online time.
Who doesn't care will not start caring. Your oppinion on that matter frankly
is exactly that.
If you care that deeply about it you'll have to track down copyright
holders yourself. Good luck.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-04-07 17:13    [W:0.033 / U:26.752 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site