Hide Forgot
The kernel packages claim to be under the GPLv2. This may be true for most of the code in the kernel, but it's clearly not true for all of it. There are very many pieces of code in there that are under various licenses that are not compatible with the GPLv2 (not to mention those that claim to be under the GPL but that would require corresponding sources to be distributed under the GPL). I suggest fixing the license tag or, even better, moving the offending files and code snippets to separate packages.
We're not going to change the license terms we get from upstream.
I'm not suggesting you to change the license terms you get from upstream. I'm rather suggesting you to stop doing that. The whole you get from upstream is not under GPLv2. Only if you remove the code that can't be distributed under the GPLv2 would you (and they) be able to claim it all to be under GPLv2. But they don't. They claim various pieces are under various licenses, even though all of the code developed as part of the Linux project is available under the GPL. Code that they claim to be merely aggregated into the source tarballs for convenience is under different licenses, and the sources say so. I'm only suggesting that you make the license tag reflect the code you're shipping. Not doing so is misleading at best. It might even expose Red Hat and the Fedora project to secondary copyright infringement liability, for people who believe the license tag may end up modifying the sources of code that doesn't grant such permissions, believing they got such permissions from Red Hat or the Fedora project. Please don't close this again before discussing it with our lawyers.
* Derived from proprietary unpublished source code This is quite true. I always thought I was getting a GPL kernel from RedHat/Fedora (I've been using RH since 1995). Around when gnewsense came about I learned that the kernel you are distributing to me is *NOT* GPL, despite what your tag says. I guess the question is why do you claim it's GPL when you *KNOW* (and have likely known for years) that it is not GPL? Just change the tag to "Mix of GPLv2 and Redistributable, no modification permitted" (or similar) since that is what it is. Or if it is GPL, where do I get the sources to tg3.c, for example? Do I have to sue to get the source, for example? RedHat, Broadcom, David Miller? All of them?
(In reply to comment #3) > Or if it is GPL, where do I get the sources to tg3.c, for example? Do I have to > sue to get the source, for example? RedHat, Broadcom, David Miller? All of them? Sue the Linux Foundation, they are providing that driver in the official kernel on www.kernel.org... Fedora does not add _anything_ to the Fedora kernel that is not under GPL. I do not speak for Red Hat, and what is distributed with Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a whole different matter.
The point is that the Linux Foundation does not claim that driver to be under the GPL, whereas Fedora does.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 9 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 9. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '9'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 9's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 9 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Fedora 9 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-07-10. Fedora 9 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.
Problem still present in Fedora 11 and rawhide. A number of blobs have been moved to kernel-firmware, but very many still remain in the kernel proper that can't be distributed under the GPL.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 12 development cycle. Changing version to '12'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Alexandre, at my request, has separately provided me with detailed information on files in the kernel that he believes contain GPL-incompatible portions. In my opinion, it is beyond dispute that at least the following files, which I understand are still included in the Fedora kernel package, are covered by licensing terms not reconcilable with GPLv2: drivers/staging/rt2860/common/firmware.h drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ffdrv.h drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ltdrv.h That being so, it follows that the existing license tag is inconsistent with published Fedora guidelines at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines The following license tag would seem to me to be more in line with Fedora guidelines, as suggested in comment #3: License: GPLv2 and Redistributable, no modification permitted Another solution would be for Fedora to change its guidelines for license tags to indicate that a given license tag does not imply the absence, in some technical contexts, of blobs under terms more restrictive than the indicated license. I am not sure that there is any implied understanding that this is so today (unlike, say, the general understanding that license texts bundled with packages under free software licenses may themselves be unmodifiable).
This message is a reminder that Fedora 12 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 12. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '12'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 12's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 12 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Any update on this?
committed for 18/rawhide.