Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262984AbTEGIy2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2003 04:54:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263011AbTEGIy2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2003 04:54:28 -0400 Received: from slider.rack66.net ([212.3.252.135]:46281 "EHLO slider.rack66.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262984AbTEGIy0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2003 04:54:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 11:07:00 +0200 From: Filip Van Raemdonck To: Simon Kelley Cc: Alan Cox , Simon Kelley , "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com Subject: Re: Binary firmware in the kernel - licensing issues. Message-ID: <20030507090700.GD25251@debian> Mail-Followup-To: Simon Kelley , Alan Cox , Simon Kelley , "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com References: <3EB79ECE.4010709@thekelleys.org.uk> <20030506121954.GO24892@mea-ext.zmailer.org> <20030506151644.GA19898@fieldses.org> <3EB7D7D9.2050603@thekelleys.org.uk> <1052234481.1202.20.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> <3EB8AD41.5010605@thekelleys.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EB8AD41.5010605@thekelleys.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2572 Lines: 62 On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 07:52:49AM +0100, Simon Kelley wrote: > Alan Cox wrote: > >On Maw, 2003-05-06 at 16:42, Simon Kelley wrote: > > > >>Then, as you say, I need to know if the kernel developers have given > >>permission to distribute a work which combines Atmel's blob with > >>their source.[1] > > > > > >Either the GPL does or it doesn't. > > >Na.. firmware stuff needs sorting out, but from the conversations I've > >seem so far that involved people with a knowledge of law thats by > >putting the firmware out of the kernel entirely > > > > Either the GPL allows this or it doesn't or maybe it is just not clear. > If it is in fact silent or ambiguous on the issue then Linus is a much > more useful resource than Lawyers. No he isn't. Others are (re)distributing his kernels, whether heavily patched or not. When he OKs it while lawyers say it's not, it's getting close to or completely impossible for those others to include the drivers in the kernel they redistribute without putting themselves at legal risk. Effectively making it impossible for those people or organizations to support running the kernels they distribute on the hardware which needs that firmware. While I agree that it is these others own responsibility to make sure they are not doing anything illegal, Linus' approval contrary to legal advise would create a situation where there is hardware which has drivers, but noone can legally redistribute them. This is just as bad as having no drivers at all. (Actually, it's worse. Think about the amount of bitching that happens about distributions not including Nvidia drivers, decss libraries or mp3 players. And you go try explain to aunt Tillie why RH can't include driver XYZ for her fizzie-whizzie USB gadget while Linus does) Sure, Linus will also be putting himself at risk in the above situation, but that's his own call to make. Question yourself whether it's more likely for Linus to get sued over it or, say, RedHat to get sued. (Hmm, I wonder about the liability in the above case of kernel.org mirrors) Regards, Filip -- "Perhaps Debian is concerned more about technical excellence rather than ease of use by breaking software. In the former we may excel. In the latter we have to concede the field to Microsoft. Guess where I want to go today?" -- Manoj Srivastava - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/