Ben Nanonote boot image

Sam Geeraerts samgee at
Thu Apr 8 16:18:43 EDT 2010

Mirko Vogt schreef:
> On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 00:02 -0700, Jason Self wrote:
>> Mirko Vogt <lists at> wrote ..
>>> Hey,
>>> However there wasn't much interest yet in collaboration.
>> Okay -- let's talk then.  I'm not sure that your "feature-flag" in and of itself 
>> is enough but I need to get all my thoughts & notes organized first.
> Any news yet? ;)
> All packages are built, the feature-flag is implemented and some libs
> (well-known suspects as libmad, liblame) and packages using them are
> marked as "non-free".
> However, I think you have better knowledge about which packages are free
> and which aren't.
> So I'd like to ask for your help, finding out which pieces of software
> contain patented/non-free content - to mark them as non-free as well.

It's still [1] not clear to me why you would lump non-free software and 
patented software together under the non-free banner. Software patents 
are not valid in many parts of the world and it's often not clear what a 
given patent covers exactly. And let's not forget plausible deniability.

If you feel that software that is confirmed or suspected to be covered 
by patents should be marked, then it makes more sense to me to use a 
separate flag (e.g. "patented") for that. That way commercial 
distributors can play it safe if they want to and customers can choose 
their distro based on legislation in their country.

Btw, I'm not an active contributor to the LibreWrt project, so I don't 
speak for it.


More information about the discussion mailing list