Hi List, I've been asked to investigate licensing issues in two packages. zd1211-firmware. This package is labelled as GPLv2+. From what I gather on sourceforge, the distributed tarball distributes binary blobs. There is also the following comments regarding licensing in Debian. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/z/zd1211-firmware/zd1211-firmware_2.16.0.0-0.1/zd1211-firmware.copyright I had a look at our CVS repo, and we somehow create a makefile that is used to create some of the files from the C header files. I'm not an expert on firmwares, so I'm not sure of all the details on the process. Even so, it seems like we are including a binary blob here. midisport-firmware This package is also labelled as GPLv2+. It's pretty clear from the lines in the spec file that there is no source to speak of. %build # Nothing to build Sourceforge labels it as: License : BSD License, GNU General Public License (GPL), Other/Proprietary License My understanding is that this is a 100% binary blob. According to the packaging guidelines, binary blob packages like these are allowed but need to be labelled as "Redistributable, no modification permitted". One of the maintainers of Blag Linux asked me to look into this, since according to their policies, these packages are verboten. I'm still not 100% sure on the first package, but is this something that I should file a bug against or are there other considerations I'm missing here? -Yaakov -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
