Le mardi 07 juin 2011 à 15:08 -0400, Hoyt Duff a écrit : > On 6/7/11, Michael Scherer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > There is lots of firmware that cannot even be distributed. Of course, we > > could do like Canonical and just pretend laws do not exist : > > http://fasmz.org/~pterjan/blog/?date=20090423 , s this clearly annoy > > users... > > > Here's how I understand the argument. There are three scenarios: > 1-Software is licensed to allow distribution. > 2-Software license specifically prohibits distribution. > 3-Software license is undetermined. > > So this means that: > 1-OK. Distribute if possible per the terms of the license. > 2-Software should not be distributed. Interested parties in the > community may work towards a license change if they desire. > 3-It's the responsibility of the copyright holder to enforce their > rights. Group A says that all such software should not be distributed > until license status can be determined. Group B says to distribute > software until copyright holder complains; no complaint equals implied > permission to distribute. Again, interested parties in the community > may work towards a license change if they desire.
Group A is right. If there is no explicit rights granted, then we cannot redistribute it. USAs consider that software are literacy work ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright ). And that's something that do not need any specific declaration to be protected. Something without explicit rights is protected, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works France treat software in a similar way ( ie, if there is no explicit right to distribute a copy then you cannot, at least not in the way that would interest us as a distribution ), and I think most countries does, per application of the Berne convention ( revised in 1988 ) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works ( see article 5, that extend protection from one country to all others ). There is complex case in copyright law, but this one is quite simple. > The rest of the universe of Linux users are unaware of such issues or > don't care (not everyone can be RMS). They want Mageia to "just work". > They will blame Mageia, not the hardware manufacturer, not the > software copyright holder, not Linus Torvalds, not Richard Stallman > nor Ubuntu/Canonical/Shuttleworth. They can blame Mageia as much as they want, that will not change the international copyright treaties. > The question is how will Mageia balance the need for "just works" with > the desire to honor copyrights and engage only in legal software > distribution? This is made more complex because those rights and > copyright laws are not equal everywhere in the world. So if the question is : "will mageia do something clearly illegal in France to please users", I think that I can safely answer "no". But if you are not satisfied with the answer and my reasoning, feel free to ask to the council or the board for a precision. Or ask to a lawyer. Even Canonical did clean the firmware package, as you can see if you follow the url given by the blog post I mentioned. -- Michael Scherer
