On Sun, 2008-09-07 at 05:15 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > The reason the FSF isn't advocating Fedora at this point is pretty > much only because Fedora doesn't yet strip the binary firmware > provided by the Linux kernel (and still provides some re-distributable > binary firmware in other packages, the microcode package and > alsa-firmware I think). I suppose there is also still some inertia > from back at a time when Fedora wasn't as good it is now with > licensing checking on packages. We are almost at the point where we can do a spin which remedies that. Our 'kernel-firmware' package is currently built from the kernel source as a subpackage of the normal kernel build -- but we should stop doing that anyway, and build it instead as a completely separate package from the linux-firmware.git repository on kernel.org. That repository contains more firmware than the kernel does already, and is going to be gaining even more. Once we're doing that as a completely separate package, people will be able to do an alternative package which Provides: kernel-firmware, but which contains only the stuff for which they have source. Then they can do their own Fedora spin which _does_ meet the FSF requirements, although we obviously don't want the 'real' Fedora spin to do that. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@xxxxxxxxx Intel Corporation -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
