Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263746AbUC3Qvt (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:51:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263754AbUC3Qvp (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:51:45 -0500 Received: from [81.168.75.8] ([81.168.75.8]:42606 "EHLO henning.makholm.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263746AbUC3Qvk (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:51:40 -0500 To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Binary-only firmware covered by the GPL? References: <8RnZwD.A.91B.qHYaAB@murphy> <40698AE4.7020006@almg.gov.br> X-My-Web-page: http://www.diku.dk/~makholm/ From: Henning Makholm Date: 30 Mar 2004 17:51:38 +0100 In-Reply-To: <40698AE4.7020006@almg.gov.br> Message-ID: <87y8picm79.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1670 Lines: 29 Scripsit Humberto Massa > to modify the fw[], at least *legally* is MHO that any > recipient/redistributor of the file _can_ and _must_ consider the file > in *that* format as the preferred form for modification (pf4m) *and*, > considering it the source code, follow the directions of the GPL in > respect to modification and redistribution. No, law does not work that way. The phrase "preferred form for modification" has a clear enough, if somewhat fuzzy, literal meaning, and one cannot *implicitly* make it mean something that directly contrast to the literal meaning. If nobody *actually* prefers the binary blob for modification, then the binary blob is *not* the preferred form for modification. That's irrespective of whether the copyright holder behaves inconsistently. > * the /status quo/ obtained by observation of the previous item > prevails _until somebody proves_ that the fw[] = {} is *not* the > source code; And Debian's approach to software freedom doesn't work that way either. We treat software as non-free and non-distributable unless and until we see good and self-consistent evidence that it is actually free and distributable. The "burden of proof", to the extent that expression applies, is always on the side that claims that the software in question is OK for Debian to distribute. -- Henning Makholm "Nu kommer han. Kan du ikke h?re knallerten?" - 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/