Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261789AbVDEQAZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:00:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261794AbVDEP72 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:59:28 -0400 Received: from alog0165.analogic.com ([208.224.220.180]:15275 "EHLO chaos.analogic.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261793AbVDEPvm (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:51:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:50:54 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard B. Johnson" Reply-To: linux-os@analogic.com To: Humberto Massa cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice. In-Reply-To: <4252A821.9030506@almg.gov.br> Message-ID: References: <4252A821.9030506@almg.gov.br> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3696 Lines: 82 On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Humberto Massa wrote: > Josselin Mouette wrote: > >> You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has >> nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of >> firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of >> the kernel. Full stop. End of story. Bye bye. Redhat and SuSE may still >> be willing to distribute such binary images, but it isn't our problem. >> Wrong! It is perfectly legal in the United States, and I'm pretty sure in your country, to distribute or redistribute copyrighted works. Otherwise there wouldn't be any bookstores or newspaper stands. There is nothing about firmware that is any different than any other component of a product. If the product was legally obtained and it requires firmware to run, then there are no special considerations about how one inserts the firmware into the product. If you are a GPL-religious-zealot who believes that you are supposed to get the technical design (i.e. the software schematics) of the hardware device for free so you can copy it, then you are going to have to learn something about intellectual property. The firmware, in most cases, are the bits generated by a design program that creates the function of the device. It's what the manufacturer paid 5-10 engineers over a period of a year or so to produce. The rest of the design is just some chips you can get off-the-shelf. Even if the manufacturer said; "Here you are.... You can have the design....". You don't have the "compilers" and other stuff necessary to turn this design into the firmware unless you planned to steal the design. So, you either accept the firmware component, thanking the manufacturer for it, or you go cry foul someplace else. This whole firmware thing is a non-issue, blown way out of proportion by people who don't have a clue. Sometimes a manufacturer doesn't have a separate bag-of-bits to supply competing operating systems. Instead, only one "driver" for one OS was produced by the manufacturer. Extracting those bits, from offset-N to offset-M in that driver likely constitutes fair use as long as the product wasn't stolen and the driver was distributed with the product, or was publicly available. >> > Yes, GFDL has nothing to do with the main issue. No, it is not > necessarily illegal to redistribute binary images of the kernel as they > are today (see below). The first problem is that they (the complete > w/firmware kernel binary images) are not DFSG-free, anyway. The second > problem is that some firmware blobs don't have explicitly stated in the > kernel tree which exactly are their licensing terms for redistribution > -- those are, in principle, undistributable. > >> Putting the firmwares outside the kernel makes them distributable. Some >> distributions will want to include them, some others not. But the >> important point is that it makes that redistribution legal. >> >> > If putting the firmwares outside the kernel makes *them* distributable, > then the binary kernel image is already distributable -- just not > DFSG-free. The important fact WRT Debian, IMHO, is that putting the > firmwares outside the kernel makes the kernel binary image DFSG-free. > > HTH, > Massa Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.11 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips). Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by Dictator Bush. 98.36% of all statistics are fiction. - 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/