Harald van D3k wrote: > Right, which is why at the same time it would be useful to have an > option to not install those files. There's no problem with USE > conditionals in LICENSE; LICENSE="GPL-2 firmware? ( freedist )" or > expanded further would be fine, and simply nuke those files on install > with USE="-firmware".
Nick White is already working on modifying the kernel-2 eclass so that it's possible to remove such files, using the deblobbing scripts from the FSF-LA. See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=266157. Your license suggestion would be a perfect accompaniment. > The GPL-2 licensed parts of all the kernel packages -- so probably > everything that matters -- could be installed with > ACCEPT_LICENSE="GPL-2" with my above suggestion. Yes, and using just 'freedist' as you suggested, should remove all the hassle of keeping the list up-to-date. Greg KH wrote: > Also note that the license of the firmware files do not matter to > almost everyone using the kernel, as almost no one uses those files > anymore, the ones in the linux-firmware package should be used > instead. The key word here is 'almost'. For example, I happened to be using one or two of them, before I found out they were non-free. I was oblivious to it initially because it wasn't reflected in the license. All I'm asking for is that users who care about this will be shown an accurate license, so that they can be as free as possible, if they choose that path. We obviously have different beliefs on the issue, but isn't it better to accommodate both--aren't we aiming for essentially the same goals anyway? :)
