At Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:44:53 +0200, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Charbonnel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > First of all thanks for Dyne:bolic :) All README files from the > > alsa-firmware package grant copyright to the respective > > companies with the statement 'Redistributable under the GPL', so > > I guess the answer is yes. As far as I'm concerned we received > > several verbal and mail confirmations from RME that we could > > redistribute the files, and Matthias Carstens (who I just met > > last week) promised me an official written statement. > > I absolutely don't want to start a legal debate here, given that it > would probably be off topic and the issue has already been (and is > being) widely discussed on the debian-legal mailing list, but please > notice that AFAICT distributing binaries under the GNU GPL license > means that the distributor must > > (a) Accompany [the program] with the complete corresponding > machine-readable source code [...] > > (b) Accompany [the program] with a written offer, valid for at least > three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than > your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete > machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code [...] > > (there is also option (c), see the GNU GPL v.2 for further details) > > The point here is understanding what the `source' of a piece of > firmware is. > > The GNU GPL defines the `source' as the "the preferred form of the > work for making modifications to it". Now the debate on debian-legal > has been whether the hex-expressed firmware discovered in various > kernel files was actually hand-modified by the "distributor" with a > hex editor, or a higher-level language was used. If the latter is > true, then the GNU GPL has been breached (because I've never seen the > source code of the alsa-firmware package, please correct me if I'm > wrong).
i also don't know about this. we got them from the hw vendors as they are. > So, saying that the firmware is "distributable under the GNU GPL" is > not sufficient `per se' to prove that the firmware itself is Free > Software. let me clarify the situation. there are a couple of different questions regarding this: 1. is the firmware binary is a program or a data? 2. can we force the h/w vendor to show the source code under GPL (if exists) in practice? 3. if not, shouldn't we change the license to the non-restrictive one? which license would be feasible? so far, alsa-firmware package is released from the understanding of 1 as "data". but if someone insists it as program, yes, it can be a problem. > My personal position is one of being a bit more pragmatic. A large > part of the hardware we use actually has firmware embedded into it, > the only difference being that we don't see it and we don't need to > upload it (for example, AFAICR the Pentium IV automatically translates > standard Intel machine code into an internal, risc-like, set of > instructions - nobody is asking Intel for the source code of *that* > firmware). > > The issue is thorny and I agree that a Live CD without alsa-firmware > is not particularly efficient. On the other hand, I do see legal (as > well as ethical, if one wants to go down that route) problems in > distributing non-free firmware. I'd like to understand the various > options a bit more before launching ourselves into the > "users-need-it-so-lets-package-it" frenzy (I'd rather tell users that > they must bug the companies they buy hardware from to release the > `source code' of the firmware needed to operate those cards under > GNU/Linux, if we discover that the firmware is actually non-free). sure, the correct distribution under GPL would be the best case, i.e. including the source code of the orignal assembly codes (if really exists). basically, it is a decision of the h/w vendor who provides the DSP binary, not by me. if the GPL is really unsuitable (and we can judge the firmware as a program 100% absolutely :), we'll suggest them to either show the source code or change the license ASAP. but i don't expect GPL source codes as a realistic solution, although i'll try it of course. remember that they are *really* delicate about the firmware code. -- Takashi Iwai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ALSA Developer - www.alsa-project.org
