On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 01:19:24AM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote: > 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.
So how did this change anything? Did you change hardware platforms to ones with opensource firmware files? If so, what ones did you use instead? Is the firmware for them open source? > 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? :) No, I think you are trying to solve a non-problem. Think through my question above please. If the kernel loads a firmware file that is not free, or if the device itself has a firmware in it that you can not change so easily, has _nothing_ to do with the license of the kernel, nor the "freeness" of the software you are running. thanks, greg k-h
