Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:17:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Richard B. Johnson" <linux-os@analogic.com>
Reply-To: linux-os@analogic.com
To: Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org>
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: <1112723637.4878.14.camel@mirchusko.localnet>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504051408190.17159@chaos.analogic.com>
References: <lLj-vC.A.92G.w4pUCB@murphy> <4252A821.9030506@almg.gov.br>
 <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504051123100.16479@chaos.analogic.com>
 <1112723637.4878.14.camel@mirchusko.localnet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="1879706418-1327475389-1112725078=:17159"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 4879
Lines: 106

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--1879706418-1327475389-1112725078=:17159
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Josselin Mouette wrote:

> Le mardi 05 avril 2005 =FF=FF 11:50 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a =FF=FFcri=
t :
>>>> 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 o=
f
>>>> the kernel. Full stop. End of story. Bye bye. Redhat and SuSE may stil=
l
>>>> 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.
>
> It is not legal to distribute the mix of a GPL software (the Linux
> kernel) and a proprietary file (the firmware). I wasn't aware of the
> "mere aggregation" interpretation, and I'm probably a bit late to say I
> disagree with it - mainly because you'd have a hard time convincing a
> court this is the case.
>
>> 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.
>
> Indeed, but that's not what I'm talking about.
>
>> 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.
>
> Maybe you should try to understand what people are saying before
> teaching them anything.
>
>> 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.
>
> You are completely missing the point. I don't care whether the firmwares
> should be free, or whether they could be free. The fact is they are not
> free, and Debian doesn't distribute non-free software in the "main"
> archive. The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
> an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people
> disagree with that assertion now.
>

As previously explained, if I buy a screen-card I get a driver
that will allow it to run under Windows. If I extract the stuff
from that driver that allows me to run it under Linux, that
constitutes fair use. Otherwise there are criminal issues like
restraint-of-trade and similar problems for the manufacturer.
That firmware is free for use on/in the device you purchased.

> Finally, you shouldn't forget that, technically speaking, using hotplug
> for uploading the firmware is much more flexible and elegant than
> including it in the kernel. Upgrading the firmware and the module should
> be two independent operations. People who are advocating the current
> situation are refusing technical improvements just because they are
> brought by people they find convenient to call "zealots".

Throwing in a bit of truth to a pile of bullshit still leaves
the bullshit. It isn't relevant to the issue whether or not
upgrading firmware as a separate function from loading a module
is "good" or "bad".

> --=20
> .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
> : :' :           josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
> `. `'                        joss@debian.org
>  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
>

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.
--1879706418-1327475389-1112725078=:17159--
-
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/