Re: [GNU-linux-libre] firmware with licence problems (sorry I left out some key words)

[Paul O'Malley]

Sorry - Left out some words and it breaks the email they need to be in 
there, bad form to reply to your own post, however I do think the point 
is wor

On 04/09/10 12:50, Paul O'Malley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When I applaud the list of "blobs" being created, it strikes me that 
> the community may wish to think of a question or two around this issue.
> Is it enough to label these things as incompatible?
>
> When is the person who chose the licence to 
have someone
> politely explain how their licence prevents 
lots of
> people from using their software.
>
> It was exactly this kind of process that got GLX freed up and allowed 
> back in to the libre stack.
>
> It takes time, in the case of GLX about a year.
> http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2009-01-xorg-glx
>
> What should not happen is that you accept someone else's word for it. 
> This can leave you exposed to at least being wrong and perhaps 
> angering the person or people you want on your side.
>
> For instance there are a batch of fonts that seem to be nonfree 
> however if you dig into the debian licence documentation the non free 
> licence is actually turned into a licence which has more in common 
> with WTFPL than anything else, except it 
(the licence that is)
> could used in the politest of company. I'm not naming them for the 
> simple reason this is a tangent to my main thought.
>
> The results of action in this space may be to get code released with a 
> good licence and save reinventing the wheel should anyone wish to work 
> on materials in this space.
>
> When seeking a licence change you should request that it is 
> retroactive so anyone with any version can choose either the new free 
> licence or the old one, given that people have come to depend on both.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul O'Malley