On May 22, 2008, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks! The Packaging Committee and kernel maintainers will have to > look into what's going on here. Although that doesn't address your > larger issue of binary firmware. Indeed, it doesn't. I don't think there are very many of these firmwares that are licensed in such obnoxious terms. But it's certainly not the only example of this kind of problem. The nouveau-drm patches that we're adding ourselves contain relatively large chunks of "voodoo" [sic] code copied from non-Free drivers by means of mmio dumps, but no copyright notices or licensing associated specifically to those pieces of code. As much as I appreciate what these folks are doing, I'm not sure this approach is ethical, let alone legal. I don't know whether this has been run through legal, but if it hasn't, I suggest that it be. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
