[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Grub & accessibility
From: |
Robert Millan |
Subject: |
Re: Grub & accessibility |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:03:25 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 10:51:04AM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> Quoting Samuel Thibault <address@hidden>:
>
>> (sorry phcoder for the duplication)
>>
>> Robert Millan, le Fri 10 Jul 2009 19:22:48 +0200, a écrit :
>>> We've made some exceptions, but in general, we'd like to keep the GRUB
>>> codebase made entirely of FSF-copyrighted code, or at least code we
>>> have disclaimers for.
>>>
>>> OTOH, we don't want to discard valuable work that wasn't written
>>> specifically
>>> for GRUB. Perhaps Marco or Okuji will allow an exception for this case.
>>
>> The thing is that it would be sad to re-implement these drivers, as
>> getting hardware to make sure they work is hard.
>
> One of the main advantages of Free Software is that it allows code
> sharing. For a GNU project to reject accessibility code solely because
> it's copyrighted by others would be a very bad move from the PR
> perspective.
Hi,
We're not going to reject that code, or duplicate their work. I discussed
this with Marco two days ago. He approves of the grub-extras project, and
thinks we can make this the recommended approach for situations in which we
want to import code that wasn't written specifically for GRUB.
Had I known about his position, I'd have proposed that some things like LUA
be put there. Anyhow, I look forward to more stuff being added to it.
grub-extras is integrated with the Debian package, so additions there are
merged with it semi-automatically.
I won't allow, however, grub-extras to be used as an excuse to avoid
paperwork for code specifically written for GRUB. We've had some bad
experience with uncooperative developers who refused even signing a
disclaimer (which essentially said they wrote the code themselves without
infringing someone else's copyright).
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."