Bug#509646: bnx2x firmware licensing
Hi Eilon, In bnx2x_init_values.h, there appear to be several sourceless firmware blobs (init_data_*, *_int_table_data_*, and arguably init_ops). So far, Debian has removed this file from our distribution of linux-2.6 and disabled the driver. In order to allow Debian users to use bnx2x, I have written a patch [1] to the driver to use request_firmware (using the result of a "firmware cutter" here [2]), but the current licensing is ambiguous. (The whole bnx2x driver seems to be licensed under the GPL, but it has no exception for the sourceless parts, which can't be covered by the GPL. In any case, it doesn't give us the right to redistribute the contents of bnx2x_init_values.h in binary-equivalent form.) Can you clarify the license for us? For example, the bnx2_fw.h header has the following notice: /* bnx2_fw.h: Broadcom NX2 network driver. * * Copyright (c) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Broadcom Corporation * * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation, except as noted below. * * This file contains firmware data derived from proprietary unpublished * source code, Copyright (c) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Broadcom Corporation. * * Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware data * in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this copyright notice is * accompanying it. */ Thanks for your time! [1]: http://bugs.debian.org/509647 [2]: http://bugs.debian.org/509646 -- John Wright -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#509646: bnx2x firmware licensing
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 13:05 -0600, John Wright wrote: > Hi Eilon, > > In bnx2x_init_values.h, there appear to be several sourceless firmware > blobs (init_data_*, *_int_table_data_*, and arguably init_ops). [...] init_ops looks like a plausible "preferred form for modification" to me. It's not very meaningful without reference to the Programmers' Reference Manual, but then neither is most of the other hardware setup code in the driver. Regarding the other tables, I'll reiterate John's request. Unless you can make a good case that these really are the preferred form for modification, or apply a licence that does not require source, then Debian can't distribute them at all. Ben. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#509646: bnx2x firmware licensing
Hi John, You are right - I'm adding a licensing to bnx2x_init_values.h similar to the bnx2 license that you quoted. However, I'm not sure if now is a good time to send such a patch to netdev for net-2.6 so I'm sending it to net-next - please let me know if this is not enough. Regards, Eilon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#509646: bnx2x firmware licensing
hello jsw, please post your bnx2x patch to net...@vger.kernel.org so that it can be reviewed and merged upstream! thanks :) -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#509646: bnx2x firmware licensing
Hi maks, On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 05:46:35PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > hello jsw, > > please post your bnx2x patch to net...@vger.kernel.org > so that it can be reviewed and merged upstream! I was waiting on Eilon's licensing patch to make it into net-next, but I see that it's been there for a week now... I'm working on cleaning up my patch now. Thanks, -- John Wright -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#509646: bnx2x firmware licensing
Hi Eilon, On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 04:17:51AM -0700, Eilon Greenstein wrote: > Hi John, > > You are right - I'm adding a licensing to bnx2x_init_values.h similar > to the bnx2 license that you quoted. However, I'm not sure if now is a > good time to send such a patch to netdev for net-2.6 so I'm sending it > to net-next - please let me know if this is not enough. Thanks! I'm now cleaning up the request_firmware patch to submit upstream. Is the init_ops array part of the firmware data derived from proprietary unpublished source code, or may I take that to be in its preferred form for modification? Thank you, -- John Wright -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#509646: bnx2x firmware licensing
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, John Wright wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 05:46:35PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > > hello jsw, > > > > please post your bnx2x patch to net...@vger.kernel.org > > so that it can be reviewed and merged upstream! > > I was waiting on Eilon's licensing patch to make it into net-next, but I > see that it's been there for a week now... I'm working on cleaning up > my patch now. please don't wait on such upstream merge take anyway already quite some time, once something is in linux-next you can assume it merged. kind regards -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#509646: bnx2x firmware licensing
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 13:30 -0700, John Wright wrote: Hi John, > > > > You are right - I'm adding a licensing to bnx2x_init_values.h similar > > to the bnx2 license that you quoted. However, I'm not sure if now is a > > good time to send such a patch to netdev for net-2.6 so I'm sending it > > to net-next - please let me know if this is not enough. > > Thanks! I'm now cleaning up the request_firmware patch to submit > upstream. Is the init_ops array part of the firmware data derived from > proprietary unpublished source code, or may I take that to be in its > preferred form for modification? The majority part of the init_ops derives from firmware proprietary unpublished source code - however, it was merged between the two chips (E1 and E1H) to reduce some code size (~1000 lines). We can split it again between the two chips and have a file per chip if that seems reasonable - the downside is that we will have about 1000 duplicated lines of (mostly meaningless) registers initializations. If this is the way we want to go, I can work on creating the two files. What is the timeframe over here? When is the next deadline and when is the one after that...? Thanks, Eilon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#509646: bnx2x firmware licensing
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 05:31:03PM +0300, Eilon Greenstein wrote: > On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 13:30 -0700, John Wright wrote: > Hi John, > > > > > > You are right - I'm adding a licensing to bnx2x_init_values.h similar > > > to the bnx2 license that you quoted. However, I'm not sure if now is a > > > good time to send such a patch to netdev for net-2.6 so I'm sending it > > > to net-next - please let me know if this is not enough. > > > > Thanks! I'm now cleaning up the request_firmware patch to submit > > upstream. Is the init_ops array part of the firmware data derived from > > proprietary unpublished source code, or may I take that to be in its > > preferred form for modification? > > The majority part of the init_ops derives from firmware proprietary > unpublished source code - however, it was merged between the two chips > (E1 and E1H) to reduce some code size (~1000 lines). We can split it > again between the two chips and have a file per chip if that seems > reasonable - the downside is that we will have about 1000 duplicated > lines of (mostly meaningless) registers initializations. > > If this is the way we want to go, I can work on creating the two files. > What is the timeframe over here? When is the next deadline and when is > the one after that...? I was afraid of that... It just makes the firmware logic more complicated, since the firmware image also needs to keep track of the function offsets in the init_ops array, which are currently just #defines in the header. I'm not sure there's any particular deadline -- I would like to see this upstream soon so that Debian users can use bnx2x cards without building a new kernel (and without having to maintain a patch in Debian's kernel that won't go upstream). For now, the initial split could keep init_ops in a separate firmware file from the E1 and E1H specific blobs. This would result in 3 firmware files instead of bnx2x_init_values.h, and the driver loading the init_ops file plus the E1 or E1H specific file at init time. I'll start figuring out how to store init_ops and the function offsets in the firmware file. -- John Wright -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#509646: bnx2x firmware licensing
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 05:46:35PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > hello jsw, > > please post your bnx2x patch to net...@vger.kernel.org > so that it can be reviewed and merged upstream! I have sent an updated version of the patch to the netdev list: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg93813.html -- John Wright -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
