[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Alan Cox wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 03:57:03AM -0300, jeff wrote:
---> No, the difference is Fedora is *DISTRIBUTING* the non-free bits.  <---

Please go read the Fedora policy on firmware.


"Some applications and drivers require binary-only firmware to function. Fedora permits inclusion of these files as long as they meet the following requirements:"

"The files are standalone, not embedded in executable or library code."

Well, what about tg3.c? That's clearly not standalone, for one example.

"The files must be necessary for the functionality of open source code being included in Fedora."

Again, what about tg3.c? The non-free firmware in tg3.c is *not necessary* for the driver to work. We have linux-libre users using tg3 successfully without the firmware, for example.

It seems to me that it fails on two counts of your own policy.

The policy also states: "The License tag for any firmware that disallows modification must be set to: "Redistributable, no modification permitted""

To me it seems clear, /at a minimum/, that the LICENSE tag of the kernel in Fedora/RH is incorrect as it says it is "GPLv2", when there are more licenses involved than just that, some of which say "no modification permitted".



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]