Hi,
A few months ago, VIA quietly released the source for their VT6656 USB WiFi
chip. The original VIA archive can be downloaded here:
http://www.viaarena.com/Driver/vt6656-linux-x86-src-v113.rar
As I work with VIA hardware regularly as part of my job and some of our
customers would find this driver useful, I spent a little bit of time looking at
it. With a slight tweak, it compiled against my 2.6.20 kernel, and seemed to be
working fine. The attached patch illustrates the changes I made to make the
driver compile, however, I'm not much of a kernel hacker, so I can't guarantee
its correctness.
Now, I expect that the kernel developers will want this driver to be worked over
before it could be accepted into the kernel tree, however, the most critical
remaining issue is that of license. Most of the source files contain the
following notice:
* Copyright (c) 2003 VIA Networking, Inc. All rights reserved.
*
* This software is copyrighted by and is the sole property of
* VIA Networking, Inc. This software may only be used in accordance
* with the corresponding license agreement. Any unauthorized use,
* duplication, transmission, distribution, or disclosure of this
* software is expressly forbidden.
*
* This software is provided by VIA Networking, Inc. "as is" and any
* express or implied warranties, including, but not limited to, the
* implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular
* purpose are disclaimed. In no event shall VIA Networking, Inc. be
* liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or
* consequential damages.
This doesn't sound very GPL to me, however, the twist is in main_usb.c:
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
I am not sure how legally binding this declaration could be. My guess is that
it's not.
I have sent some messages to VIA asking for clarification, however, I've not
gotten much of a response. I can possibly push this harder, but I thought I'd
send it this way first to see if it is worth pursuing in the minds of the people
that would know these things.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 15:37 -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
> This doesn't sound very GPL to me, however, the twist is in main_usb.c:
Not really.
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> What do you think?
That declaring MODULE_LICENSE in a file that isn't licensed under GPL is
a violation of the kernel license.
johannes
On 9/20/07, Forest Bond <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 04:04:25PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 15:37 -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
> >
> > > This doesn't sound very GPL to me, however, the twist is in main_usb.c:
> >
> > Not really.
> >
> > > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > That declaring MODULE_LICENSE in a file that isn't licensed under GPL is
> > a violation of the kernel license.
>
> And, assuming that in-kernel support for this chip is desirable, is it better to
> pursue license clarification from VIA, or re-implement using the driver source
> as a reference?
>
> The reason I ask is that I suspect for this driver to get into the kernel, it
> will likely see a lot of changes, anyway. If it's going to be rewritten,
> there's little sense in me pushing VIA on the license issue, is there?
>
> I hope I'm not being daft.
Try to get license clarification. CC John, it may help. Most vendor
drivers suck so usually they are rewritten anyway. I am not sure if we
can use it as a reference. I'm trying to find out ;) but in the mean
time try to get license clarification, it would help.
Luis
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 04:04:25PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 15:37 -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
>
> > This doesn't sound very GPL to me, however, the twist is in main_usb.c:
>
> Not really.
>
> > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>
> > What do you think?
>
> That declaring MODULE_LICENSE in a file that isn't licensed under GPL is
> a violation of the kernel license.
And, assuming that in-kernel support for this chip is desirable, is it better to
pursue license clarification from VIA, or re-implement using the driver source
as a reference?
The reason I ask is that I suspect for this driver to get into the kernel, it
will likely see a lot of changes, anyway. If it's going to be rewritten,
there's little sense in me pushing VIA on the license issue, is there?
I hope I'm not being daft.
Thanks,
Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
Hi,
Replying to self:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 03:37:43PM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
> Most of the source files contain the following notice:
>
> * Copyright (c) 2003 VIA Networking, Inc. All rights reserved.
> *
> * This software is copyrighted by and is the sole property of
> * VIA Networking, Inc. This software may only be used in accordance
> * with the corresponding license agreement. Any unauthorized use,
> * duplication, transmission, distribution, or disclosure of this
> * software is expressly forbidden.
> *
> * This software is provided by VIA Networking, Inc. "as is" and any
> * express or implied warranties, including, but not limited to, the
> * implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular
> * purpose are disclaimed. In no event shall VIA Networking, Inc. be
> * liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or
> * consequential damages.
>
> This doesn't sound very GPL to me, however, the twist is in main_usb.c:
Or, rather, that the package doesn't contain "the corresponding license
agreement" is the real problem. Apologies, etc...
-Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:07:11PM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 02:59:00PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 03:37:43PM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
> > > A few months ago, VIA quietly released the source for their VT6656 USB WiFi
> > > chip. The original VIA archive can be downloaded here:
> > Any luck getting license clarification from VIA?
> I did send a few e-mails (one to the driver developer, and one to a personal
> contact at VIA), but neither has yielded anything useful. I think the only
> remaining effective option is to bring it up on viaarena.com. Consumer angst
> runs thick in those parts, and VIA has occasionally been known to respond
> semi-positively. In this case, that just might be enough, since their
> intentions were clearly to open-source the driver, despite their apparent
> inability to document this properly.
>
> Does that seem like a good path to you?
Thas sounds great to me. I look forward to hearing the results!
Thanks,
John
--
John W. Linville
[email protected]
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:12:50PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:07:11PM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 02:59:00PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 03:37:43PM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
>
> > > > A few months ago, VIA quietly released the source for their VT6656 USB WiFi
> > > > chip. The original VIA archive can be downloaded here:
>
> > > Any luck getting license clarification from VIA?
>
> > I did send a few e-mails (one to the driver developer, and one to a personal
> > contact at VIA), but neither has yielded anything useful. I think the only
> > remaining effective option is to bring it up on viaarena.com. Consumer angst
> > runs thick in those parts, and VIA has occasionally been known to respond
> > semi-positively. In this case, that just might be enough, since their
> > intentions were clearly to open-source the driver, despite their apparent
> > inability to document this properly.
> >
> > Does that seem like a good path to you?
>
> Thas sounds great to me. I look forward to hearing the results!
The post is here:
http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=78745
Any noise that can be contributed is welcome and appreciated. You'll need to
create an account to post, though.
Thanks,
Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 09:07:31PM -0500, Forest Bond wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:12:50PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:07:11PM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 02:59:00PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 03:37:43PM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
> >
> > > > > A few months ago, VIA quietly released the source for their VT6656 USB WiFi
> > > > > chip. The original VIA archive can be downloaded here:
> >
> > > > Any luck getting license clarification from VIA?
> >
> > > I did send a few e-mails (one to the driver developer, and one to a personal
> > > contact at VIA), but neither has yielded anything useful. I think the only
> > > remaining effective option is to bring it up on viaarena.com. Consumer angst
> > > runs thick in those parts, and VIA has occasionally been known to respond
> > > semi-positively. In this case, that just might be enough, since their
> > > intentions were clearly to open-source the driver, despite their apparent
> > > inability to document this properly.
> > >
> > > Does that seem like a good path to you?
> >
> > Thas sounds great to me. I look forward to hearing the results!
>
> The post is here:
>
> http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=78745
>
> Any noise that can be contributed is welcome and appreciated. You'll need to
> create an account to post, though.
>
> Thanks,
> Forest
> --
> Forest Bond
> http://www.alittletooquiet.net
I also added these. Perhaps having plenty of content/links regarding this issue
will help to increase visibility:
http://www.alittletooquiet.net/text/a-license-for-the-via-vt6656-linux-driver/
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.22/+bug/162671
Thanks,
Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
Hi John,
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 02:59:00PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 03:37:43PM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > A few months ago, VIA quietly released the source for their VT6656 USB WiFi
> > chip. The original VIA archive can be downloaded here:
> >
> > http://www.viaarena.com/Driver/vt6656-linux-x86-src-v113.rar
>
> Forest,
>
> Any luck getting license clarification from VIA?
Sorry for the silence.
I think I might have mentioned before that the company I work for has an
established relationship with VIA which in most circumstances can be helpful for
handling situations like this one. Unfortunately, I've not been able to bring
it up as a business-related item due to some unfortunate circumstances that I'm
not permitted to elaborate upon here.
I did send a few e-mails (one to the driver developer, and one to a personal
contact at VIA), but neither has yielded anything useful. I think the only
remaining effective option is to bring it up on viaarena.com. Consumer angst
runs thick in those parts, and VIA has occasionally been known to respond
semi-positively. In this case, that just might be enough, since their
intentions were clearly to open-source the driver, despite their apparent
inability to document this properly.
Does that seem like a good path to you?
Thanks,
Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 03:37:43PM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A few months ago, VIA quietly released the source for their VT6656 USB WiFi
> chip. The original VIA archive can be downloaded here:
>
> http://www.viaarena.com/Driver/vt6656-linux-x86-src-v113.rar
Forest,
Any luck getting license clarification from VIA?
Thanks,
John
--
John W. Linville
[email protected]
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:00:51PM -0500, Forest Bond wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 09:07:31PM -0500, Forest Bond wrote:
> > The post is here:
> >
> > http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=78745
> >
> > Any noise that can be contributed is welcome and appreciated. You'll need to
> > create an account to post, though.
> I also added these. Perhaps having plenty of content/links regarding this issue
> will help to increase visibility:
>
> http://www.alittletooquiet.net/text/a-license-for-the-via-vt6656-linux-driver/
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.22/+bug/162671
Excellent...I appreciate your efforts as an agitator! :-)
--
John W. Linville
[email protected]
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:12:50PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:07:11PM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 02:59:00PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 03:37:43PM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
>
> > > > A few months ago, VIA quietly released the source for their VT6656 USB
> > > > WiFi chip. The original VIA archive can be downloaded here:
>
> > > Any luck getting license clarification from VIA?
>
> > I did send a few e-mails (one to the driver developer, and one to a personal
> > contact at VIA), but neither has yielded anything useful. I think the only
> > remaining effective option is to bring it up on viaarena.com. Consumer angst
> > runs thick in those parts, and VIA has occasionally been known to respond
> > semi-positively. In this case, that just might be enough, since their
> > intentions were clearly to open-source the driver, despite their apparent
> > inability to document this properly.
> >
> > Does that seem like a good path to you?
>
> Thas sounds great to me. I look forward to hearing the results!
Right, of course you do :)
I'll write an initial post to viaarena.com tonight. It might be helpful if a
few folks from this list drop by and contribute some noise. This isn't really
one of VIA's biggest products, and I don't know what the affected user base
really looks like. I'd hate to come up short on allies.
I'll report back shortly.
-Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
On Jan 7, 2008 3:31 PM, Forest Bond <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:20:02PM -0500, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 2008 1:49 PM, Forest Bond <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:06:34PM -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:00:51PM -0500, Forest Bond wrote:
> > > >> On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 09:07:31PM -0500, Forest Bond wrote:
> > > >>> The post is here:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=78745
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Any noise that can be contributed is welcome and appreciated. You'll need
> > > >>> to create an account to post, though.
> > > >
> > > >> I also added these. Perhaps having plenty of content/links regarding this
> > > >> issue will help to increase visibility:
> > > >>
> > > >> http://www.alittletooquiet.net/text/a-license-for-the-via-vt6656-linux-driver/
> > > >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.22/+bug/162671
> > > >
> > > > Excellent...I appreciate your efforts as an agitator! :-)
> > >
> > > At this point I am not anticipating positive results WRT this endeavor, and am
> > > unable to pursue further assistance from VIA. Further, I've seen that the
> > > driver in question likely exhibits some interesting quirks that makes it
> > > difficult to use. It is also bit-rotting out of relevance.
> >
> > This is unfortunate to hear...
> >
> > > Can the driver be used as a reference for a fresh implementation? I've not
> > > written a driver before, but would be open to the possibility.
> >
> > IANAL but I believe It basically depends on the license the vendor
> > issued the driver under and its sources under. If no license was used
> > then I believe the standard copyright license terms should be assumed.
> > What license was used throughout the driver files?
> >
> > > What are the legal ramifications of a driver author having access to
> > > proprietary source code?
> >
> > Again, I believe it depends on the license/NDA/terms under which the
> > driver author obtained access to such proprietary source code. The
> > more details you provide the better.
>
> The license was omitted. This was presumably an oversight, but intentions are
> always hard to know when the other party isn't saying anything :)
I'm calling their offices now, we should be able to just talk to
someone from their dev team...
> There's little doubt in my mind that we get nothing more than fair use out of
> this package, though. The question is "is that enough?". Code copying is
> obviously not allowed, but is a new (and sufficiently different) implementation
> allowed?
I think so but IANAL so not too sure, we can then ask SFLC to verify
in the end what's possible or not.
Luis
On Jan 7, 2008 3:47 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 7, 2008 3:31 PM, Forest Bond <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:20:02PM -0500, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Jan 7, 2008 1:49 PM, Forest Bond <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:06:34PM -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:00:51PM -0500, Forest Bond wrote:
> > > > >> On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 09:07:31PM -0500, Forest Bond wrote:
> > > > >>> The post is here:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=78745
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Any noise that can be contributed is welcome and appreciated. You'll need
> > > > >>> to create an account to post, though.
> > > > >
> > > > >> I also added these. Perhaps having plenty of content/links regarding this
> > > > >> issue will help to increase visibility:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> http://www.alittletooquiet.net/text/a-license-for-the-via-vt6656-linux-driver/
> > > > >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.22/+bug/162671
> > > > >
> > > > > Excellent...I appreciate your efforts as an agitator! :-)
> > > >
> > > > At this point I am not anticipating positive results WRT this endeavor, and am
> > > > unable to pursue further assistance from VIA. Further, I've seen that the
> > > > driver in question likely exhibits some interesting quirks that makes it
> > > > difficult to use. It is also bit-rotting out of relevance.
> > >
> > > This is unfortunate to hear...
> > >
> > > > Can the driver be used as a reference for a fresh implementation? I've not
> > > > written a driver before, but would be open to the possibility.
> > >
> > > IANAL but I believe It basically depends on the license the vendor
> > > issued the driver under and its sources under. If no license was used
> > > then I believe the standard copyright license terms should be assumed.
> > > What license was used throughout the driver files?
> > >
> > > > What are the legal ramifications of a driver author having access to
> > > > proprietary source code?
> > >
> > > Again, I believe it depends on the license/NDA/terms under which the
> > > driver author obtained access to such proprietary source code. The
> > > more details you provide the better.
> >
> > The license was omitted. This was presumably an oversight, but intentions are
> > always hard to know when the other party isn't saying anything :)
>
> I'm calling their offices now, we should be able to just talk to
> someone from their dev team...
Well this sucks... just FYI,
http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=78745
this is the page you started on viaarena for this. It is no longer up.
I now get a "Page not found"
Luis
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:06:34PM -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:00:51PM -0500, Forest Bond wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 09:07:31PM -0500, Forest Bond wrote:
>>> The post is here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=78745
>>>
>>> Any noise that can be contributed is welcome and appreciated. You'll need
>>> to create an account to post, though.
>
>> I also added these. Perhaps having plenty of content/links regarding this
>> issue will help to increase visibility:
>>
>> http://www.alittletooquiet.net/text/a-license-for-the-via-vt6656-linux-driver/
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.22/+bug/162671
>
> Excellent...I appreciate your efforts as an agitator! :-)
At this point I am not anticipating positive results WRT this endeavor, and am
unable to pursue further assistance from VIA. Further, I've seen that the
driver in question likely exhibits some interesting quirks that makes it
difficult to use. It is also bit-rotting out of relevance.
Can the driver be used as a reference for a fresh implementation? I've not
written a driver before, but would be open to the possibility.
What are the legal ramifications of a driver author having access to
proprietary source code?
Thanks,
Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:20:02PM -0500, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2008 1:49 PM, Forest Bond <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:06:34PM -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:00:51PM -0500, Forest Bond wrote:
> > >> On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 09:07:31PM -0500, Forest Bond wrote:
> > >>> The post is here:
> > >>>
> > >>> http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=78745
> > >>>
> > >>> Any noise that can be contributed is welcome and appreciated. You'll need
> > >>> to create an account to post, though.
> > >
> > >> I also added these. Perhaps having plenty of content/links regarding this
> > >> issue will help to increase visibility:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.alittletooquiet.net/text/a-license-for-the-via-vt6656-linux-driver/
> > >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.22/+bug/162671
> > >
> > > Excellent...I appreciate your efforts as an agitator! :-)
> >
> > At this point I am not anticipating positive results WRT this endeavor, and am
> > unable to pursue further assistance from VIA. Further, I've seen that the
> > driver in question likely exhibits some interesting quirks that makes it
> > difficult to use. It is also bit-rotting out of relevance.
>
> This is unfortunate to hear...
>
> > Can the driver be used as a reference for a fresh implementation? I've not
> > written a driver before, but would be open to the possibility.
>
> IANAL but I believe It basically depends on the license the vendor
> issued the driver under and its sources under. If no license was used
> then I believe the standard copyright license terms should be assumed.
> What license was used throughout the driver files?
>
> > What are the legal ramifications of a driver author having access to
> > proprietary source code?
>
> Again, I believe it depends on the license/NDA/terms under which the
> driver author obtained access to such proprietary source code. The
> more details you provide the better.
The license was omitted. This was presumably an oversight, but intentions are
always hard to know when the other party isn't saying anything :)
There's little doubt in my mind that we get nothing more than fair use out of
this package, though. The question is "is that enough?". Code copying is
obviously not allowed, but is a new (and sufficiently different) implementation
allowed?
-Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
On Jan 7, 2008 4:06 PM, Forest Bond <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:54:49PM -0500, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Well this sucks... just FYI,
> >
> > http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=78745
> >
> > this is the page you started on viaarena for this. It is no longer up.
> > I now get a "Page not found"
>
> Looks like they just launched a new forum that replaces the old one. The old
> message may be there somewhere, but DNS delays are causing issues right now, I
> think. I'll look again later.
OK I did some searches, I believe the old thread is now here:
http://www.tkarena.com/forums/linux-arena/33808-linux-source-packages-released.html
Luis
On Jan 7, 2008 1:49 PM, Forest Bond <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:06:34PM -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:00:51PM -0500, Forest Bond wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 09:07:31PM -0500, Forest Bond wrote:
> >>> The post is here:
> >>>
> >>> http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=78745
> >>>
> >>> Any noise that can be contributed is welcome and appreciated. You'll need
> >>> to create an account to post, though.
> >
> >> I also added these. Perhaps having plenty of content/links regarding this
> >> issue will help to increase visibility:
> >>
> >> http://www.alittletooquiet.net/text/a-license-for-the-via-vt6656-linux-driver/
> >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.22/+bug/162671
> >
> > Excellent...I appreciate your efforts as an agitator! :-)
>
> At this point I am not anticipating positive results WRT this endeavor, and am
> unable to pursue further assistance from VIA. Further, I've seen that the
> driver in question likely exhibits some interesting quirks that makes it
> difficult to use. It is also bit-rotting out of relevance.
This is unfortunate to hear...
> Can the driver be used as a reference for a fresh implementation? I've not
> written a driver before, but would be open to the possibility.
IANAL but I believe It basically depends on the license the vendor
issued the driver under and its sources under. If no license was used
then I believe the standard copyright license terms should be assumed.
What license was used throughout the driver files?
> What are the legal ramifications of a driver author having access to
> proprietary source code?
Again, I believe it depends on the license/NDA/terms under which the
driver author obtained access to such proprietary source code. The
more details you provide the better.
Luis
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 15:47 -0500, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2008 3:31 PM, Forest Bond <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:20:02PM -0500, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Jan 7, 2008 1:49 PM, Forest Bond <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:06:34PM -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:00:51PM -0500, Forest Bond wrote:
> > > > >> On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 09:07:31PM -0500, Forest Bond wrote:
> > > > >>> The post is here:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=78745
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Any noise that can be contributed is welcome and appreciated. You'll need
> > > > >>> to create an account to post, though.
> > > > >
> > > > >> I also added these. Perhaps having plenty of content/links regarding this
> > > > >> issue will help to increase visibility:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> http://www.alittletooquiet.net/text/a-license-for-the-via-vt6656-linux-driver/
> > > > >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.22/+bug/162671
> > > > >
> > > > > Excellent...I appreciate your efforts as an agitator! :-)
> > > >
> > > > At this point I am not anticipating positive results WRT this endeavor, and am
> > > > unable to pursue further assistance from VIA. Further, I've seen that the
> > > > driver in question likely exhibits some interesting quirks that makes it
> > > > difficult to use. It is also bit-rotting out of relevance.
> > >
> > > This is unfortunate to hear...
> > >
> > > > Can the driver be used as a reference for a fresh implementation? I've not
> > > > written a driver before, but would be open to the possibility.
> > >
> > > IANAL but I believe It basically depends on the license the vendor
> > > issued the driver under and its sources under. If no license was used
> > > then I believe the standard copyright license terms should be assumed.
> > > What license was used throughout the driver files?
> > >
> > > > What are the legal ramifications of a driver author having access to
> > > > proprietary source code?
> > >
> > > Again, I believe it depends on the license/NDA/terms under which the
> > > driver author obtained access to such proprietary source code. The
> > > more details you provide the better.
> >
> > The license was omitted. This was presumably an oversight, but intentions are
> > always hard to know when the other party isn't saying anything :)
>
> I'm calling their offices now, we should be able to just talk to
> someone from their dev team...
>
> > There's little doubt in my mind that we get nothing more than fair use out of
> > this package, though. The question is "is that enough?". Code copying is
> > obviously not allowed, but is a new (and sufficiently different) implementation
> > allowed?
>
> I think so but IANAL so not too sure, we can then ask SFLC to verify
> in the end what's possible or not.
That would be good; the issue is that there is _no_ license at all with
the code, but that the code contains MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") as the sole
indicator of license intent, if you can even interpret that as license
intent. There isn't really any copyright indication anywhere in the
sources either ISTR. Maybe query the SFLC about what is possible given
these limitations?
Dan
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:54:49PM -0500, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Well this sucks... just FYI,
>
> http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=78745
>
> this is the page you started on viaarena for this. It is no longer up.
> I now get a "Page not found"
Looks like they just launched a new forum that replaces the old one. The old
message may be there somewhere, but DNS delays are causing issues right now, I
think. I'll look again later.
-Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net