Bug#383403: marked as done (linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware)
Your message dated Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:41:28 +0100 with message-id 20090325114128.ga5...@stro.at and subject line drivers containing firmware blobs has caused the Debian Bug report #242866, regarding linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 242866: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=242866 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: linux-2.6 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.1 The following 59 files, found in Debian's linux-2.6_2.6.17.orig.tar.gz, apparently contain software in binary form, for which Debian has no corresponding source code. Debian policy states that The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Therefore Debian must not distribute these files. drivers/atm/atmsar11.data drivers/atm/pca200e.data drivers/atm/pca200e_ecd.data drivers/atm/sba200e_ecd.data drivers/char/drm/mga_ucode.h drivers/char/drm/r128_cce.c drivers/char/drm/radeon_cp.c drivers/char/dsp56k.c drivers/char/ip2/fip_firm.h drivers/media/dvb/ttpci/av7110_hw.c drivers/media/dvb/ttusb-budget/dvb-ttusb-dspbootcode.h drivers/media/video/usbvideo/vicam.c drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ffdrv.h drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ltdrv.h drivers/net/bnx2_fw.h drivers/net/cassini.h drivers/net/e100.c drivers/net/hamradio/yam1200.h drivers/net/hamradio/yam9600.h drivers/net/myri_code.h drivers/net/pcmcia/ositech.h drivers/net/starfire_firmware.h drivers/net/tg3.c drivers/net/tokenring/3c359_microcode.h drivers/net/typhoon-firmware.h drivers/scsi/advansys.c drivers/scsi/ql1040_fw.h drivers/scsi/ql12160_fw.h drivers/scsi/ql1280_fw.h drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2100_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2200_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2300_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2322_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2400_fw.c drivers/scsi/qlogicpti_asm.c drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h drivers/usb/net/kawethfw.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_boot2.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_boot.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_down2.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_down3.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_down.h drivers/usb/serial/ti_fw_3410.h drivers/usb/serial/ti_fw_5052.h drivers/usb/serial/whiteheat_fw.h sound/isa/sb/sb16/sb16_csp_codecs.h sound/isa/wavefront/wavefront_fx.c sound/oss/maestro3.h sound/oss/ymfpci_image.h sound/oss/yss225.c sound/pci/cs46xx/cs46xx_image.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwc4630.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcasync.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcdma.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcemb80.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcsnoop.h sound/pci/korg1212/korg1212-firmware.h sound/pci/maestro3.c sound/pci/ymfpci/ymfpci_image.h This list is probably not perfect. Corrections are welcome. Additional information is posted at http://doolittle.icarus.com/~larry/fwinventory/2.6.17.html -- System Information: deleted (irrelevant) ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Version: 2.6.29-1 allmost all drivers are now using request_firmware(), just one or two that aren't, but are to be switched are still disabled. woow closing this, let's be happy we wont have a new firmware dance on squeeze release. -- maks ---End Message---
Bug#383403: marked as done (linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware)
Your message dated Fri, 16 May 2008 15:26:02 +0200 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Re: done mission over has caused the Debian Bug report #242866, regarding linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] immediately.) -- 242866: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=242866 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: linux-2.6 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.1 The following 59 files, found in Debian's linux-2.6_2.6.17.orig.tar.gz, apparently contain software in binary form, for which Debian has no corresponding source code. Debian policy states that The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Therefore Debian must not distribute these files. drivers/atm/atmsar11.data drivers/atm/pca200e.data drivers/atm/pca200e_ecd.data drivers/atm/sba200e_ecd.data drivers/char/drm/mga_ucode.h drivers/char/drm/r128_cce.c drivers/char/drm/radeon_cp.c drivers/char/dsp56k.c drivers/char/ip2/fip_firm.h drivers/media/dvb/ttpci/av7110_hw.c drivers/media/dvb/ttusb-budget/dvb-ttusb-dspbootcode.h drivers/media/video/usbvideo/vicam.c drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ffdrv.h drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ltdrv.h drivers/net/bnx2_fw.h drivers/net/cassini.h drivers/net/e100.c drivers/net/hamradio/yam1200.h drivers/net/hamradio/yam9600.h drivers/net/myri_code.h drivers/net/pcmcia/ositech.h drivers/net/starfire_firmware.h drivers/net/tg3.c drivers/net/tokenring/3c359_microcode.h drivers/net/typhoon-firmware.h drivers/scsi/advansys.c drivers/scsi/ql1040_fw.h drivers/scsi/ql12160_fw.h drivers/scsi/ql1280_fw.h drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2100_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2200_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2300_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2322_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2400_fw.c drivers/scsi/qlogicpti_asm.c drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h drivers/usb/net/kawethfw.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_boot2.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_boot.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_down2.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_down3.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_down.h drivers/usb/serial/ti_fw_3410.h drivers/usb/serial/ti_fw_5052.h drivers/usb/serial/whiteheat_fw.h sound/isa/sb/sb16/sb16_csp_codecs.h sound/isa/wavefront/wavefront_fx.c sound/oss/maestro3.h sound/oss/ymfpci_image.h sound/oss/yss225.c sound/pci/cs46xx/cs46xx_image.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwc4630.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcasync.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcdma.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcemb80.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcsnoop.h sound/pci/korg1212/korg1212-firmware.h sound/pci/maestro3.c sound/pci/ymfpci/ymfpci_image.h This list is probably not perfect. Corrections are welcome. Additional information is posted at http://doolittle.icarus.com/~larry/fwinventory/2.6.17.html -- System Information: deleted (irrelevant) ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Version: 2.6.24-1 the offended firmware is stripped in linux-2.6 since aboves metioned version. stop reopening that bug if you are not a MAINTAINER nor have any valid piece of info that it has *not* been dealt with. if you find additional DFSG violations report a new bug. kthxbye -- maks ---End Message---
Bug#383403: marked as done (linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware)
Your message dated Thu, 15 May 2008 16:44:56 +0200 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Re: drivers containing firmware blobs has caused the Debian Bug report #242866, regarding linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] immediately.) -- 242866: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=242866 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: linux-2.6 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.1 The following 59 files, found in Debian's linux-2.6_2.6.17.orig.tar.gz, apparently contain software in binary form, for which Debian has no corresponding source code. Debian policy states that The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Therefore Debian must not distribute these files. drivers/atm/atmsar11.data drivers/atm/pca200e.data drivers/atm/pca200e_ecd.data drivers/atm/sba200e_ecd.data drivers/char/drm/mga_ucode.h drivers/char/drm/r128_cce.c drivers/char/drm/radeon_cp.c drivers/char/dsp56k.c drivers/char/ip2/fip_firm.h drivers/media/dvb/ttpci/av7110_hw.c drivers/media/dvb/ttusb-budget/dvb-ttusb-dspbootcode.h drivers/media/video/usbvideo/vicam.c drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ffdrv.h drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ltdrv.h drivers/net/bnx2_fw.h drivers/net/cassini.h drivers/net/e100.c drivers/net/hamradio/yam1200.h drivers/net/hamradio/yam9600.h drivers/net/myri_code.h drivers/net/pcmcia/ositech.h drivers/net/starfire_firmware.h drivers/net/tg3.c drivers/net/tokenring/3c359_microcode.h drivers/net/typhoon-firmware.h drivers/scsi/advansys.c drivers/scsi/ql1040_fw.h drivers/scsi/ql12160_fw.h drivers/scsi/ql1280_fw.h drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2100_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2200_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2300_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2322_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2400_fw.c drivers/scsi/qlogicpti_asm.c drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h drivers/usb/net/kawethfw.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_boot2.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_boot.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_down2.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_down3.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_down.h drivers/usb/serial/ti_fw_3410.h drivers/usb/serial/ti_fw_5052.h drivers/usb/serial/whiteheat_fw.h sound/isa/sb/sb16/sb16_csp_codecs.h sound/isa/wavefront/wavefront_fx.c sound/oss/maestro3.h sound/oss/ymfpci_image.h sound/oss/yss225.c sound/pci/cs46xx/cs46xx_image.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwc4630.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcasync.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcdma.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcemb80.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcsnoop.h sound/pci/korg1212/korg1212-firmware.h sound/pci/maestro3.c sound/pci/ymfpci/ymfpci_image.h This list is probably not perfect. Corrections are welcome. Additional information is posted at http://doolittle.icarus.com/~larry/fwinventory/2.6.17.html -- System Information: deleted (irrelevant) ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Version: 2.6.24-1 The Debian Kernel Team is guilty of uploading a disjointed kernel. For the record Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] coded the infrastructure for the stripping and the stripping itself. The FTP masters threatened to block any future Linux uploads or alternatively would launch an NMU (non maintainer upload) stripping the affected drivers. I very strongly disagreed with that decision, but the Debian Developer made their position clear in the General Resolution 2006-007, which is binding for us. In the long run it might be a win for Free Software - history will tell. In the short term this is an annoyance for existing hardware driver support. As expected none of the vocal minority, aka Mr. Nerode and Mr. Doolittle, demanding DFSG freeness helped to work out this transition nor to cleanup the created mess. The stripping presents an additional maintenance burden. But I'm sick of the arguments. Rather then fighting I'd like to see people working together to make things work, both on the licensing side (BSD firmware) and on the code side (firmware_request()), neither is easy. I'm thus closing the bug reports regarding firmware blobs and pointing the reporters to the following wiki page in order to finaly help a bit - http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing Possible DFSG violations in current and future linux-2.6 uploads should be filed seperately. kthxbye -- maks ---End Message---
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 07:46:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:07:42AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maks - On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 06:05:30PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: Something about [bug #242866] seems broken, however, because RC-buggy linux-2.6 packages keep making it into testing. Is it obvious how to keep this from happening, without starting a new bug attached to linux-2.6? if you feel like it reassign it, Bugs merged and assigned to linux-2.6. Thanks, I think the kernel pseudo-package is mostly obsolete: it should be reserved for bugs affecting multiple kernels. This bug doesn't affect freebsd, hurd, etc. It does affect linux-2.4 and linux-2.2, but those are scheduled for removal before etch anyway. So actually, I'd like to suggest running through the bugs against 'kernel' and reassigning them to linux-2.6 or closing them as appropriate. Does that seem like a reasonable thing to do when I'm bored and not feeling up to programming, or would there be some complaint about it. Yes, it is the best thing. We should also ask the BTS admin's to assign new bugs to kernel pseudo package directly to linux-2.6, this is i believe possible. snip anyway if you want to improve the legal situtation use: http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing dilinger succeeded in various firmware relicensing thanks to his quest to the vendors. feel free to pick up. Broadcom tg3 relicensing alone took over two years. This is a lovely thing to do, and I am *very very* impressed with dilinger's diligence and his success (I tried but failed to contact anyone at Broadcom). dgrs I have to disagree on this, between the moment i contacted broadcom, and the solution, there was at most 2-3 months or so. and qla2xxx are the only other drivers he had *any* success with, according to the wiki page. I am afraid we need a shorter-term solution. Well, we didn't really pursue any of the other drivers. That makes 3 out of 3 we really pursued though, and they can all be handled in parallel. The real problem is stuff like the acenic driver, where the copyright holder is lost. Altough we could try to gather a position statement by various possible copyright holders, where they claim not to hold copyright of this part, or something and then add this and wait until someone complains, showing our good faith and best effort, and then asking whoever complains to clarify the copyright. For each offending file, there are three possible solutions: 1. Get the author to release source code under a DFSG-free license 2. Move the firmware to non-free, patching the driver to use request_firmware() 3. Delete the driver and firmware entirely. 4. Move the whole friver to non-free, without major patching. 5. Reverse engineer the needed firmware, and create a trully free driver. AFAIK, the best outcome yet from the relicensing discussions on http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing is to properly permit the redistribution of the binary, without source code. Indeed, but even that was laughed at back then when we started at it, and you should have seen the reaction of LKML when i mentioned it there. Not to mention the reaction I originally got from the netdev maintainers, which was rather more hostile than being 'laughed at'. I think a lot of Err, i was laughed at by some people here, the LKML was indeed a bit more hostile than that. people genuinely believed that you could license an unsourced binary under the GPL I can't imagine *why* they believed that, though. snip That's fine for debian non-free, and a necessary step for making option (2) above work properly. Until and unless the entire Linux kernel is moved to non-free, such relicensing doesn't solve the fundamental bug. Indeed. I agree that option (3) is bad, but I still recommend it for the short term. It's the quickest path to a legal and For the short term, 4. is a better solution. Right. If a driver really can't build out-of-tree comfortably, (4) may not be feasible and (3) or (2) may be necessary, but let's cross that bridge if we come to it. What can I do to help with (4)? :-) SC-conforming Linux release, and it will bring people out of the closet to volunteer to work on (2). I think (2) is the actual goal, but maybe not one that can be finished before the proposed etch freeze -- especially since most of the blobs need to be relicensed before they can be made part of firmware-nonfree. Indeed, which is because we could also consider : 6. Pass another GR to allow debian/etch to release as is, provided we If the GR includes a commitment to include a statement regarding this violation of the SC in the *release notes*, then I would be satisfied with this from a freeness point of view: at least Debian would be advertising its failure to
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
On Aug 18, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think the project need anymore such vulgarities, please try to stay I do not think the project needs anymore people with no concern for the needs of our users either. polite, reread the social contract, and abide by what you agreed to when you joined debian. When I joined Debian we cared about free software. Not free firmwares. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:35:49 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: It was just some way to say, please don't be so harsh on larry, who has good intentions and actually did some work, not compared to others. Sure. And that's great. If only you did not clutter such good intention with whining. Yes, it now only takes small hints to be considered whining - thanks to your massive efforts to make us all aware of it. /me still doesn't understand why you chose not to credit me though, You may not ever understand it. Repeating does not help. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm pgp97AXe3vfkX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:29:56PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:35:49 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: /me still doesn't understand why you chose not to credit me though, You may not ever understand it. Repeating does not help. I am also slightly (or more) offended by it, and repeating that may some day make you realize it, which is why i will repeat as long as it takes. With some people there is no other way around, see how long and how many repetitions it took you to take the RC bug seriously ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 09:23:43AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Aug 18, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think the project need anymore such vulgarities, please try to stay I do not think the project needs anymore people with no concern for the needs of our users either. There you are again putting words in my mouth i never said. Independently of what you think or say, stay polite about it, especially to outsiders like larry. Also, the social contract says clearly that : 1) we care about our users *AND* free software. 2) we have created the non-free section to put non-free software in it that may be needed for our users. What else do you want ? polite, reread the social contract, and abide by what you agreed to when you joined debian. When I joined Debian we cared about free software. Not free firmwares. and in what world do you live where you could even start to imagine that the firmwares are not software ? They clearly are not hardware, since you cannot directly touch them. Also, i think all of you are taking the wrong discourse, and there is no way you can be right. You should instead try the following discourse : 1) The firmware in question (those that are not plain register dumps) are indeed non-free, since they are clearly software, often assembly software, compiled with some assembler tool, and we lack sources for them (but someone has said source, or at least had it at some time point. 2) But we argue that we should still distribute it in main, for reason such and such. Among those reason, there are a few which come to my mind out of hand : 1) We consider firmware as being part of the hardware, not really the software. 2) If we consider a hardware piece which needs an uploadable firmware, even if the firmware in question is non-free, it is still globally more free than an equivalent piece of hardware where all is hardcoded in silicon. And so on, it is always better to be honest and true to oneself, than to try to argue obvious wrong stuff, like you have been doing, and furthermore, seeing that there is no way you can honestly defend your point, and you know that inside yourself, so you ressort to vulgarities and barkings to get your point accross. Please meditate on this one, and then come back to this discussion with an open and honest mind, and it will be much more fruitful. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:40:41 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: i will repeat as long as it takes. You are certainly free to do so. And experience (the hard way, rather than just by being told) the consequences of such behaviour. With some people there is no other way around, see how long and how many repetitions it took you to take the RC bug seriously ? Wrong. New info caused new action. Your whining has the opposite effect: Your wrapping of valuable info in big chunks of whining and repetitive noise risk not even noticing your contributions! - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm pgpWiMom1nuQ8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 04:28:26PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:40:41 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: i will repeat as long as it takes. You are certainly free to do so. And experience (the hard way, rather than just by being told) the consequences of such behaviour. With some people there is no other way around, see how long and how many repetitions it took you to take the RC bug seriously ? Wrong. New info caused new action. Your whining has the opposite effect: Your wrapping of valuable info in big chunks of whining and repetitive noise risk not even noticing your contributions! yeah, as opposed to you explaining me in a very strong tone, which i was seriously afraid would degenerate into a RL fist-fight if i persisted, that you should not even look with me at the bug and investigate in erkelenz, right ? It was at that time that i decided that there will be no way i will continue to support yaird as long as you are the main maintainer, because you cannot be thrusthed to fix bugs in a timely fashion. And the info was not new, i had pointed this selfsame thing already in november, but nobody apart me chose to take action and look at the info, while it was your jobs as ramdisk-generator maintainers. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:07:42AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maks - On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 06:05:30PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: Something about [bug #242866] seems broken, however, because RC-buggy linux-2.6 packages keep making it into testing. Is it obvious how to keep this from happening, without starting a new bug attached to linux-2.6? if you feel like it reassign it, Bugs merged and assigned to linux-2.6. I think the kernel pseudo-package is mostly obsolete: it should be reserved for bugs affecting multiple kernels. This bug doesn't affect freebsd, hurd, etc. It does affect linux-2.4 and linux-2.2, but those are scheduled for removal before etch anyway. So actually, I'd like to suggest running through the bugs against 'kernel' and reassigning them to linux-2.6 or closing them as appropriate. Does that seem like a reasonable thing to do when I'm bored and not feeling up to programming, or would there be some complaint about it. snip anyway if you want to improve the legal situtation use: http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing dilinger succeeded in various firmware relicensing thanks to his quest to the vendors. feel free to pick up. Broadcom tg3 relicensing alone took over two years. This is a lovely thing to do, and I am *very very* impressed with dilinger's diligence and his success (I tried but failed to contact anyone at Broadcom). dgrs and qla2xxx are the only other drivers he had *any* success with, according to the wiki page. I am afraid we need a shorter-term solution. For each offending file, there are three possible solutions: 1. Get the author to release source code under a DFSG-free license 2. Move the firmware to non-free, patching the driver to use request_firmware() 3. Delete the driver and firmware entirely. 4. Move the whole friver to non-free, without major patching. 5. Reverse engineer the needed firmware, and create a trully free driver. AFAIK, the best outcome yet from the relicensing discussions on http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing is to properly permit the redistribution of the binary, without source code. Indeed, but even that was laughed at back then when we started at it, and you should have seen the reaction of LKML when i mentioned it there. Not to mention the reaction I originally got from the netdev maintainers, which was rather more hostile than being 'laughed at'. I think a lot of people genuinely believed that you could license an unsourced binary under the GPL I can't imagine *why* they believed that, though. snip That's fine for debian non-free, and a necessary step for making option (2) above work properly. Until and unless the entire Linux kernel is moved to non-free, such relicensing doesn't solve the fundamental bug. Indeed. I agree that option (3) is bad, but I still recommend it for the short term. It's the quickest path to a legal and For the short term, 4. is a better solution. Right. If a driver really can't build out-of-tree comfortably, (4) may not be feasible and (3) or (2) may be necessary, but let's cross that bridge if we come to it. What can I do to help with (4)? :-) SC-conforming Linux release, and it will bring people out of the closet to volunteer to work on (2). I think (2) is the actual goal, but maybe not one that can be finished before the proposed etch freeze -- especially since most of the blobs need to be relicensed before they can be made part of firmware-nonfree. Indeed, which is because we could also consider : 6. Pass another GR to allow debian/etch to release as is, provided we If the GR includes a commitment to include a statement regarding this violation of the SC in the *release notes*, then I would be satisfied with this from a freeness point of view: at least Debian would be advertising its failure to live up to the SC. If there is no such commitment, I would expect to see the same charade for etch+1. There's also a problem with Sven's analysis of option (6) relative to options (4) and (2). From a legal point of view, distributing the 'undistributable' (mislicensed) blobs in 'main' and distributing them in 'non-free' is equally bad. If it's OK to distribute them in the kernel package, it's OK to distribute them in 'firmware-nonfree'. It is up to the ftpmasters, the release team, and or the DPL to decide whether they are comfortable with it or not. If they are, then the blobs can be put in firmware-nonfree and (4) is perfectly straightforward. If they are not, then the blobs must be removed from the archive. (6) offers no advantage over (4) with regard to this. (This doesn't affect the non-free blobs which are properly licensed.) commit to a real effort to solve this for etch+1, or better yet, with some pro-active wording, which say we will make every effort to solve this issue, but don't provide timelines and schedules, as upstream will
Bug#383403: marked as done (linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware)
Your message dated Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:11:58 +0200 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#383403: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) ---BeginMessage--- Package: linux-2.6 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.1 The following 59 files, found in Debian's linux-2.6_2.6.17.orig.tar.gz, apparently contain software in binary form, for which Debian has no corresponding source code. Debian policy states that The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Therefore Debian must not distribute these files. drivers/atm/atmsar11.data drivers/atm/pca200e.data drivers/atm/pca200e_ecd.data drivers/atm/sba200e_ecd.data drivers/char/drm/mga_ucode.h drivers/char/drm/r128_cce.c drivers/char/drm/radeon_cp.c drivers/char/dsp56k.c drivers/char/ip2/fip_firm.h drivers/media/dvb/ttpci/av7110_hw.c drivers/media/dvb/ttusb-budget/dvb-ttusb-dspbootcode.h drivers/media/video/usbvideo/vicam.c drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ffdrv.h drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ltdrv.h drivers/net/bnx2_fw.h drivers/net/cassini.h drivers/net/e100.c drivers/net/hamradio/yam1200.h drivers/net/hamradio/yam9600.h drivers/net/myri_code.h drivers/net/pcmcia/ositech.h drivers/net/starfire_firmware.h drivers/net/tg3.c drivers/net/tokenring/3c359_microcode.h drivers/net/typhoon-firmware.h drivers/scsi/advansys.c drivers/scsi/ql1040_fw.h drivers/scsi/ql12160_fw.h drivers/scsi/ql1280_fw.h drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2100_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2200_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2300_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2322_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2400_fw.c drivers/scsi/qlogicpti_asm.c drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h drivers/usb/net/kawethfw.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_boot2.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_boot.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_down2.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_down3.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_down.h drivers/usb/serial/ti_fw_3410.h drivers/usb/serial/ti_fw_5052.h drivers/usb/serial/whiteheat_fw.h sound/isa/sb/sb16/sb16_csp_codecs.h sound/isa/wavefront/wavefront_fx.c sound/oss/maestro3.h sound/oss/ymfpci_image.h sound/oss/yss225.c sound/pci/cs46xx/cs46xx_image.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwc4630.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcasync.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcdma.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcemb80.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcsnoop.h sound/pci/korg1212/korg1212-firmware.h sound/pci/maestro3.c sound/pci/ymfpci/ymfpci_image.h This list is probably not perfect. Corrections are welcome. Additional information is posted at http://doolittle.icarus.com/~larry/fwinventory/2.6.17.html -- System Information: deleted (irrelevant) ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 05:17:34PM -0700, Larry Doolittle wrote: Package: linux-2.6 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.1 how about if you check for duplicate bug reports! see #242866 for same style. The following 59 files, found in Debian's linux-2.6_2.6.17.orig.tar.gz, apparently contain software in binary form, for which Debian has no corresponding source code. Debian policy states that The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Therefore Debian must not distribute these files. you give zero prove that they are not register code, anyway closing due to the duplicate submission. -- maks ---End Message---
Bug#383403: closed by maximilian attems [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Re: Bug#383403: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware)
Maks - On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:48:15AM -0700, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 05:17:34PM -0700, Larry Doolittle wrote: Package: linux-2.6 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.1 how about if you check for duplicate bug reports! see #242866 for same style. I'm aware of #242866, and I'd be happy to work within that report. Something about it seems broken, however, because RC-buggy linux-2.6 packages keep making it into testing. Is it obvious how to keep this from happening, without starting a new bug attached to linux-2.6? The following 59 files, found in Debian's linux-2.6_2.6.17.orig.tar.gz, apparently contain software in binary form, for which Debian has no corresponding source code. Debian policy states that The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Therefore Debian must not distribute these files. you give zero prove that they are not register code, Huh. Have you actually looked at the files in question? I don't actually care what the data is called. Take a near-random example: drivers/scsi/qlogicpti_asm.c 1. The file represents approximately 18482 bytes of binary data. Nobody enters that in hex without machine help. 2. The file name refers to asm, commonly understood shorthand for assembler, the process of (or program for) converting human-legible code to such binaries. 3. Similar binaries from the same manufacturer, that are downloaded to boards serving a similar function, are provided with assembly source code. If you find any of those 59 files that does _not_ look like it was machine-generated from source code at some point in its history, or find comments from the author explaining how they wrote those files from scratch by typing in hex numbers, please let me know so I can correct my inventory. If you can even show hints that a file is miscategorized, I would be happy to participate in constructive discussion. Your throwaway one-liner above is not a good start. - Larry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
Maks - On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 06:05:30PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: Something about [bug #242866] seems broken, however, because RC-buggy linux-2.6 packages keep making it into testing. Is it obvious how to keep this from happening, without starting a new bug attached to linux-2.6? if you feel like it reassign it, anyway linux-2.6 is frozen and propagation to testing is coordinated with the release and the d-i team. Sorry, I don't understand this statement. on the other side a good example to remove people access to their discs. That's the argument that sent sarge out the door with DFSG violations. anyway if you want to improve the legal situtation use: http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing dilinger succeeded in various firmware relicensing thanks to his quest to the vendors. feel free to pick up. For each offending file, there are three possible solutions: 1. Get the author to release source code under a DFSG-free license 2. Move the firmware to non-free, patching the driver to use request_firmware() 3. Delete the driver and firmware entirely. AFAIK, the best outcome yet from the relicensing discussions on http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing is to properly permit the redistribution of the binary, without source code. That's fine for debian non-free, and a necessary step for making option (2) above work properly. Until and unless the entire Linux kernel is moved to non-free, such relicensing doesn't solve the fundamental bug. I agree that option (3) is bad, but I still recommend it for the short term. It's the quickest path to a legal and SC-conforming Linux release, and it will bring people out of the closet to volunteer to work on (2). I think (2) is the actual goal, but maybe not one that can be finished before the proposed etch freeze -- especially since most of the blobs need to be relicensed before they can be made part of firmware-nonfree. I would be amazed and impressed if option (1) could be made to work for any of these files. I don't volunteer to try. If the kernel team decides on (2) or (3), I'd be happy to help with the coding. (Note that, due to the unfortunate state of upstream, most of the patching/deletion has to happen in the creation of the .orig.tar.gz file, not the .diff.gz file) Unfortunately, due to a lack of hardware, I can't help with any testing (other than does it compile). - Larry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:07:42AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For each offending file, there are three possible solutions: 1. Get the author to release source code under a DFSG-free license snipp useless talk yes that is some work so commit yourself. the rest is not the intent of the DFSG. -- maks ps last post to this useless bug report -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
[Reply-To set to the list, I really don't want this idiocy in my personal Inbox.] On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:07:42AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the kernel team decides on (2) or (3), I'd be happy to help with the coding. (Note that, due to the unfortunate state of upstream, most of the patching/deletion has to happen in the creation of the .orig.tar.gz file, not the .diff.gz file) Unfortunately, due to a lack of hardware, I can't help with any testing (other than does it compile). No wonder you're so fucking enthusiastic about removing support for hardware. You don't own any of it. How fucking convenient. Since we seem to be pissing all over the spirit of the Social Contract in the name of some holy quest for the unattainable goal of cooperative vendors, Matthew Garrett[1] and I[2] have filed bugs to remove support for all NVidia devices. Enjoy VESA folks. 1. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=383465 2. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=383481 Now, I don't think you understand what preferred form of modification is. In all likelihood, the engineer who wrote, for example, the QLogic driver, never even touched the firmware, never once questioned it, another engineer simply gave him an array to copy to the card. The engineer who wrote the driver didn't know, or care, about what should have just been on an EEPROM, all he cared about was properly writing a Linux driver to talk to the hardware. This is the difference between a piece of firmware, and an actual binary blob that something calls into. Conviently, this is also the difference between the ``free'' NVidiot drivers, and any of the firmware-encumbered drivers you posted. No one, and I really mean No One, can really claim to contribute meaningfully to those NVidia drivers. However, all of the other drivers you mentioned have likely had substancially contributions from outsiders (other than the vendor, I mean.) (I say likely with a degree of certainty, having seen patches from !vendors for most of them.) Now, don't you have something better to do than hurt our users? Lots of love, Kyle M. PS: I feel it again worth mentioning, that even if there were no firmware in the driver, you would just get the exact same data if you pulled the EEPROM and stuck it in a reader. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#383403: closed by maximilian attems [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Re: Bug#383403: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware)
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 06:05:30PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 08:57:52AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: your thrown away grepping is the bad start. Maks, please don't pick up a fight with larry so quickly, this is something that you know was coming, which all the kernel team knew was coming, and the release team also was aware of as shown with the past hints from Andreas Barth, wearing his RM hat, about this. anyway if you want to improve the legal situtation use: http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing dilinger succeeded in various firmware relicensing thanks to his quest to the vendors. feel free to pick up. Notice that i was the first who started this and contacted broadcom, but then Andres did most of the follow up work on this, and as said, it makes those firmware again distributable, but not free enough to enter main. I am dubious though that the wiki page can easily be modified to look as nicely as the page larry provided, but then i am no wiki expert, so i will let others comment who are more wiki experts (jonas maybe ?). Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 02:41:52PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote: [Reply-To set to the list, I really don't want this idiocy in my personal Inbox.] Kyle, this idiocy as you say it, is grounded in what we all claim and agreed to in the social contract, which is a binding document to all DDs. You may disagree with it, but please, at least stay polite, ok ? On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:07:42AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the kernel team decides on (2) or (3), I'd be happy to help with the coding. (Note that, due to the unfortunate state of upstream, most of the patching/deletion has to happen in the creation of the .orig.tar.gz file, not the .diff.gz file) Unfortunately, due to a lack of hardware, I can't help with any testing (other than does it compile). No wonder you're so fucking enthusiastic about removing support for hardware. You don't own any of it. How fucking convenient. Erm, some guys tried to kick me out of debian for showing unpoliteness, so please moderate your language here. Since we seem to be pissing all over the spirit of the Social Contract in the name of some holy quest for the unattainable goal of cooperative vendors, Matthew Garrett[1] and I[2] have filed bugs to remove support for all NVidia devices. Enjoy VESA folks. Or simply don't buy nvidia hardware :) They have since forever (i remember talks about their binary only driver in the tnt2 days), been the worse enemy's of the free software community from all the graphic card manufacturers. 1. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=383465 2. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=383481 Now, I don't think you understand what preferred form of modification is. In all likelihood, the engineer who wrote, for example, the QLogic driver, never even touched the firmware, never once questioned it, another engineer simply gave him an array to copy to the card. The engineer who wrote the driver didn't know, or care, about what should have just been on an EEPROM, all he cared about was properly writing a Linux driver to talk to the hardware. So, what ? Would your reasoning mean we can move the unicorn driver into main ? It includes a binary-only soft-ADSL library, which i personally know, that not only the original unicorn author never saw the source for, but that even the compmany who produces the hardware for it never even saw the source code, since they bought the binary as is from some random chip company. Then, if you accept this in main, where would be your next step ? This is the difference between a piece of firmware, and an actual binary blob that something calls into. No, what is important is what the prefered form of modification is, and this is the one used by the original author, and not what whoever ships the binary in a modified form along the way has. Conviently, this is also the difference between the ``free'' NVidiot drivers, and any of the firmware-encumbered drivers you posted. No one, and I really mean No One, can really claim to contribute meaningfully to those NVidia drivers. However, all of the other drivers you mentioned Ah, you have a good point, but this goes down into free hardware, andthere has been very few discussion about this around. Indeed, one could argue that the effective prefered form for modification of all those drivers is the hardware specs document, or even go beyond to the actual vhdl file for the chip, and the schematic for the board its hosted in. have likely had substancially contributions from outsiders (other than the vendor, I mean.) (I say likely with a degree of certainty, having seen patches from !vendors for most of them.) So ? Now, don't you have something better to do than hurt our users? Lots of love, Kyle M. PS: I feel it again worth mentioning, that even if there were no firmware in the driver, you would just get the exact same data if you pulled the EEPROM and stuck it in a reader. Indeed. We don't chip the EEPROM though, and thus our DFSG doesn't applies to this. If you have trouble standing up to the principles of the DFSG, or some issue with the social contract, as interpreted by the last GR we had about this, feel free to propose your own GR about this, and await for the outcome. Just complaining puts you in the same class as those guys who complained about the non-free firmware, but unlike Larry, did not contribute any amount of actual work. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail. Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
Kyle - On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 02:41:52PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote: No wonder you're so *** enthusiastic about removing support for hardware. You don't own any of it. How *** convenient. Can I deduce from this that _you_ own some of the affected hardware? If I patch in request_firmware() support for that driver, would you be willing to test it? Since we seem to be pissing all over the spirit of the Social Contract in the name of some holy quest for the unattainable goal of cooperative vendors, Fully cooperative vendors would be nice, but I agree in most cases that's unattainable. Until that miraculous day arrives, the firmware that they supply needs to be removed from the free Linux kernel, have its license checked, and put into the firmware-nonfree package set up for that purpose. If you disagree with that process, say so. Now, I don't think you understand what preferred form of modification is. Trust me, as someone who has written and maintained firmware, I know what the preferred form of modification is. In all likelihood, the engineer who wrote, for example, the QLogic driver, never even touched the firmware, never once questioned it, another engineer simply gave him an array to copy to the card. The engineer who wrote the driver didn't know, or care, about what should have just been on an EEPROM, all he cared about was properly writing a Linux driver to talk to the hardware. You're probably right, since the Linux driver was probably written after the Windows driver. In a small company there is usually good communication and shared debugging sessions between the firmware author(s) and their first client, that is, the author of the first driver. This is the difference between a piece of firmware, and an actual binary blob that something calls into. I'm sorry if I used the word blob for something unusual. Binary blobs that get linked to by the kernel and executed are not firmware, and from a practical perspective are worse. Linus doesn't let those into the kernel, and taints kernels if they are loaded as modules. Legally, library blobs (executed by the Linux processor) and firmware blobs (executed by outboard controllers) are not all that different. Now, don't you have something better to do than hurt our users? I can think of a few snide replies to this. Can we instead please keep emotion out of this discussion? Can we agree that etch must have a DFSG-free Linux kernel, and we need to work together to make that kernel work as well as possible for as many users as possible? PS: I feel it again worth mentioning, that even if there were no firmware in the driver, you would just get the exact same data if you pulled the EEPROM and stuck it in a reader. The origin of our problem is that manufacturers have taken to saving themselves a little money by leaving the EEPROM off their boards, and putting the firmware on the MS-Windows[TM] driver CD instead. While they are presumably happy to let Linux users use that same firmware, the legal and practical mechanism to have that happen is (in the cases I flagged) broken. If you take an EEPROM and stick it in a reader, you (the owner of the hardware) probably have fair use rights to put it on a disk and boot your hardware from it. Since that firmware is copyrighted, and you don't own the copyright, you do not have the right to post it to the web or submit it to the mainline Linux kernel tree. - Larry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:07:42AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maks - On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 06:05:30PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: Something about [bug #242866] seems broken, however, because RC-buggy linux-2.6 packages keep making it into testing. Is it obvious how to keep this from happening, without starting a new bug attached to linux-2.6? if you feel like it reassign it, anyway linux-2.6 is frozen and propagation to testing is coordinated with the release and the d-i team. Sorry, I don't understand this statement. linux-2.6 will no more migrate to testing without the RMs explicit aproval. The RMs in this case being Andreas Barth and Steve Langasek (and some new RM team members i don't remember exactly offhand), and it is they who have the ultimate word of what will be included in etch. Please contact the debian-release@lists.debian.org mailing list to comment on this. on the other side a good example to remove people access to their discs. That's the argument that sent sarge out the door with DFSG violations. No, what allowed sarge to go out the door with DFSG violations was an unambigous GR by a majority of the debian developers who decided to include those non-free firmware (and GFDL docs, and some random fonts, and ...), into sarge even though they didn't quite meet the DFSG. That vote is not valid for etch though, as we decided to waive that only for sarge, so only a new GR will allow debian to release the current kernel with non-free firmware as part of etch, independently of the migration scripts you are so worried about above. anyway if you want to improve the legal situtation use: http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing dilinger succeeded in various firmware relicensing thanks to his quest to the vendors. feel free to pick up. For each offending file, there are three possible solutions: 1. Get the author to release source code under a DFSG-free license 2. Move the firmware to non-free, patching the driver to use request_firmware() 3. Delete the driver and firmware entirely. 4. Move the whole friver to non-free, without major patching. 5. Reverse engineer the needed firmware, and create a trully free driver. AFAIK, the best outcome yet from the relicensing discussions on http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing is to properly permit the redistribution of the binary, without source code. Indeed, but even that was laughed at back then when we started at it, and you should have seen the reaction of LKML when i mentioned it there. Maks and kyle's reaction are child's play compared to them :) That's fine for debian non-free, and a necessary step for making option (2) above work properly. Until and unless the entire Linux kernel is moved to non-free, such relicensing doesn't solve the fundamental bug. Indeed. I agree that option (3) is bad, but I still recommend it for the short term. It's the quickest path to a legal and For the short term, 4. is a better solution. SC-conforming Linux release, and it will bring people out of the closet to volunteer to work on (2). I think (2) is the actual goal, but maybe not one that can be finished before the proposed etch freeze -- especially since most of the blobs need to be relicensed before they can be made part of firmware-nonfree. Indeed, which is because we could also consider : 6. Pass another GR to allow debian/etch to release as is, provided we commit to a real effort to solve this for etch+1, or better yet, with some pro-active wording, which say we will make every effort to solve this issue, but don't provide timelines and schedules, as upstream will probably bring more problematic firmware in in unsuspecting ways. I would be amazed and impressed if option (1) could be made to work for any of these files. I don't volunteer to try. :) If the kernel team decides on (2) or (3), I'd be happy to help with the coding. (Note that, due to the unfortunate Your help is welcome, we await the first of your patches breathlessly :) state of upstream, most of the patching/deletion has to happen in the creation of the .orig.tar.gz file, not the .diff.gz file) Unfortunately, due to a lack of hardware, I can't help with any testing (other than does it compile). This is not a problem, we can easily enough spin a linux-2.6-2.6.18.dfsg1 or someting when the time is ready. There is not much time before the actual etch release is at hand, which is why 6. is probably a better solution right now, especially if you consider that while we delay etch, debian/sarge will still carry those non-free bits, and so even if we delay etch until around the same time we would have had etch+1 out the door (18 month from december 6, or june 6 2008), we would have gained nothing with regard to freeness. So, let's get etch out the door as is, or with the work we can do until the freeze and release date, and already start the work for post-etch.
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
keep me out of this thread. enough time is lost with any of those dfsg firmware wankers, that do _zero_ work upstream or on the licensing front. the drivers are free not-fucking non-free. rest in peace -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:00:18 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: Erm, some guys tried to kick me out of debian for showing unpoliteness, so please moderate your language here. ...and repeating over and over and over and over, like here! - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm pgpmClevStOwz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 01:19:33PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:06:44PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: enough time is lost with any of those dfsg firmware wankers, that do _zero_ work upstream or on the licensing front. I repeat my offer to patch any (well, almost any) of these drivers to use request_firmware(). I need a volunteer who has the affected hardware and is willing to test my changes. It would also be nice if debian kernel developers expressed interest in incorporating such work (if any) for etch. I can say that the debian kernel team is interested in incorporating such changes, provided : 1) it is not already too late for it. The RMs will have to judge on that. 2) the proposed patches are well implemented patches of good quality, are well tested and result in no breakage. 3) We are able to solve all those cases for etch, or remove the others. Doing it otherwise would be an injustice, and it would be better to postpone this. 4) The d-i team implement the needed support in d-i to load non-free firmware or even module .udebs, and build non-free flavours of the installer images in an official way. 5) There is seemless integration of these non-free drivers and firmware, and a user will not notice One alternative sven mentioned is to move these drivers to non-free. I don't see any existing framework for such package(s), but that would indeed involve less coding and debugging. There is, we have prune-non-free in trunk/scripts on the svn repo, as well as the linux-non-free-drivers (or whatever it is called), also in trunk in the svn repo, and which Bastian Blank has been working on since a long time. I am concerned about etch, and the pipeline from upstream to Debian is long enough that I think it's too late to work upstream. long enough ? We inaugurated same-day-uploads with the upstream 2.6.14 release, what do you find long enough about this. But you are right, bringing it upstream will be a long fight, and only be possible post 2.6.18, which is the targeted kernel for etch, so it is out of the question. At least 12 of the 59 files are probably licensed free enough for upstream, so upstream will have limited interest in those cases. :) Two of them thanks to previous work of the debian kernel team. Ok. Now that the above was said, my own position still is that it is best to not delay the etch release, to pass a GR to keep the firmware in main for etch, and to immediately actively start working on the solution for etch+1. It is not as if this would come to a surprise to anyone interested in solving this issue the right way, the kernel team has been discussing this over and over since over a year now, and it is back then that help should have come, not now. So, let's not do it in a hurry, but instead do it right for etch+1, which given the release date of the d-i team, is not doable anymore. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:50:33PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:00:18 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: Erm, some guys tried to kick me out of debian for showing unpoliteness, so please moderate your language here. ...and repeating over and over and over and over, like here! Well, we would not have been in this mess, if *YOU* had not forced me to over and over and over and over mention the ide-generic issue, and the mess you made of yaird, and if i had not decided that discussion was enough, and actually investigated the issue and proved beyond all doubt that i was right in it. I still have not stomached how you chose to not credit my part of that work in the yaird changelog when you finally reverted the patch you took half an hour in real-life explaining to me that you should not even look at it in erkelenz, when i proposed to you quite friendly, lets site together and have a look and fix it. I even came back positively and constructively 4 days in a row just to end the day in the same state of complete and total exhasperation over your impossible and stuborn position, which was just plain wrong as it was proven in the end, and this just as i learned that my mother had terminal cancer, altough you didn't know about this (but others did and chose not to care). As for the rest, i have made many proposals to settle the issues with the d-i team and frans, even twice appealed to the DPL, but to no result so far, they have fully refused any proposal of settlement since all those months, and are the sole responsibles for me always coming back with this, especially as they regularly continue to bash me, like Frans has done since over a year now. So, i would expect a bit more humility in your own claims when saying things like the above, and to reflect a bit on the part of responsability you have in the current state of affairs before you say stuff like the above. I do appreciate your position on the expulsion request by Andres though, and i have thanked you for it already in the past, and will repeat this again now. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:06:44PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: enough time is lost with any of those dfsg firmware wankers, that do _zero_ work upstream or on the licensing front. I repeat my offer to patch any (well, almost any) of these drivers to use request_firmware(). I need a volunteer who has the affected hardware and is willing to test my changes. You may want to start with tg3, that's the place where the last attempt failed. The hardware should be prevalent enough to find testers. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:58:12PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:06:44PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: enough time is lost with any of those dfsg firmware wankers, that do _zero_ work upstream or on the licensing front. I repeat my offer to patch any (well, almost any) of these drivers to use request_firmware(). I need a volunteer who has the affected hardware and is willing to test my changes. You may want to start with tg3, that's the place where the last attempt failed. The hardware should be prevalent enough to find testers. Was there not some very very strong opposition to the firmware removal from the tg3 upstream author ? Or was this another case ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:09:12 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:50:33PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:00:18 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: Erm, some guys tried to kick me out of debian for showing unpoliteness, so please moderate your language here. ...and repeating over and over and over and over, like here! Well, we would not have been in this mess, if *YOU* had not forced me to over and over and over and over mention the ide-generic issue, Sure - me packaging yaird is to blame. Obvious! - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm pgpyfHKe8feFg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:04:51AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:09:12 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:50:33PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:00:18 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: Erm, some guys tried to kick me out of debian for showing unpoliteness, so please moderate your language here. ...and repeating over and over and over and over, like here! Well, we would not have been in this mess, if *YOU* had not forced me to over and over and over and over mention the ide-generic issue, Sure - me packaging yaird is to blame. Obvious! No, you failing to do a responsible job while maintaining yaird is to blame. Or let's say it the other way around. If i hadn't repeated the problem over and over and over and over, and finally taken action, the ide-generic bug would not yet have been closed. Nobody was in a real hurry to investigate it really, and everyone was complaining about it. And as said, you didn't even credit me in the changelog, thus trying to take all the glory for the fixing to you and others, and diminishing my role in it. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:07:09 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:04:51AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:09:12 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:50:33PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:00:18 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: Erm, some guys tried to kick me out of debian for showing unpoliteness, so please moderate your language here. ...and repeating over and over and over and over, like here! Well, we would not have been in this mess, if *YOU* had not forced me to over and over and over and over mention the ide-generic issue, Sure - me packaging yaird is to blame. Obvious! No, you failing to do a responsible job while maintaining yaird is to blame. And this accusation is new? Or is it repetitive whining again? Repeating does not make your accusations more true, or more likely to be acknowledged. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm pgpf35Kuui7Vs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#383403: closed by maximilian attems [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Re: Bug#383403: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware)
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 11:43:52PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:39:00 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: I am dubious though that the wiki page can easily be modified to look as nicely as the page larry provided, but then i am no wiki expert, so i will let others comment who are more wiki experts (jonas maybe ?). Beautification of wiki done! Euh, i meant, would it be possible to include the nice table larry had done into the wiki, sorry for not being clear enough. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#383403: closed by maximilian attems [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Re: Bug#383403: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware)
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:39:00 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: I am dubious though that the wiki page can easily be modified to look as nicely as the page larry provided, but then i am no wiki expert, so i will let others comment who are more wiki experts (jonas maybe ?). Beautification of wiki done! - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm pgp48t3AEQ0C3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#383403: closed by maximilian attems [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Re: Bug#383403: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware)
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:54:09 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 11:43:52PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:39:00 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
I am dubious though that the wiki page can easily be modified to
look as nicely as the page larry provided, but then i am no wiki
expert, so i will let others comment who are more wiki experts
(jonas maybe ?).
Beautification of wiki done!
Euh, i meant, would it be possible to include the nice table larry
had done into the wiki, sorry for not being clear enough.
Ah.
Add that text from Larry yourself to the wiki page, please. Just copy
as is, at the bottom of the page, surrounded by triple curly quotes -
like this:
{{{
Bla bla
yada yada
}}}
Then I might find time to beautify it later (or others might...)
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
- Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
pgp3LgWy6QE8o.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:21:51AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:07:09 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:04:51AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:09:12 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:50:33PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:00:18 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: Erm, some guys tried to kick me out of debian for showing unpoliteness, so please moderate your language here. ...and repeating over and over and over and over, like here! Well, we would not have been in this mess, if *YOU* had not forced me to over and over and over and over mention the ide-generic issue, Sure - me packaging yaird is to blame. Obvious! No, you failing to do a responsible job while maintaining yaird is to blame. And this accusation is new? Or is it repetitive whining again? Nope, it just is. Repeating does not make your accusations more true, or more likely to be acknowledged. Well, we both know the truth of it, as do those that where present in erkelenz, or who followed the issue back in marsh. It was just some way to say, please don't be so harsh on larry, who has good intentions and actually did some work, not compared to others. /me still doesn't understand why you chose not to credit me though, while i actually did all the work back then, even if you deny it now. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#383403: closed by maximilian attems [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Re: Bug#383403: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware)
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:10:40AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:54:09 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 11:43:52PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:39:00 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
I am dubious though that the wiki page can easily be modified to
look as nicely as the page larry provided, but then i am no wiki
expert, so i will let others comment who are more wiki experts
(jonas maybe ?).
Beautification of wiki done!
Euh, i meant, would it be possible to include the nice table larry
had done into the wiki, sorry for not being clear enough.
Ah.
Add that text from Larry yourself to the wiki page, please. Just copy
as is, at the bottom of the page, surrounded by triple curly quotes -
like this:
{{{
Bla bla
yada yada
}}}
Then I might find time to beautify it later (or others might...)
Done, i tried to do a little bit with the tables, but i guess the {{{ }}} goes
in the way.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#383403: closed by maximilian attems [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Re: Bug#383403: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware)
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:10:40AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:54:09 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 11:43:52PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:39:00 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
I am dubious though that the wiki page can easily be modified to
look as nicely as the page larry provided, but then i am no wiki
expert, so i will let others comment who are more wiki experts
(jonas maybe ?).
Beautification of wiki done!
Euh, i meant, would it be possible to include the nice table larry
had done into the wiki, sorry for not being clear enough.
Ah.
Add that text from Larry yourself to the wiki page, please. Just copy
as is, at the bottom of the page, surrounded by triple curly quotes -
like this:
{{{
Bla bla
yada yada
}}}
Then I might find time to beautify it later (or others might...)
Will this not cause problem with the table ? This is the one which worries me.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For each offending file, there are three possible solutions: 1. Get the author to release source code under a DFSG-free license 2. Move the firmware to non-free, patching the driver to use request_firmware() 3. Delete the driver and firmware entirely. 4. Recognize that the project has been hostage of a few licensing kooks, tell them to fsck off and move on. AFAIK, the best outcome yet from the relicensing discussions on http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing is to properly permit the redistribution of the binary, without source code. I consider it data, there no need for special arrangements to distribute the data of a GPL'ed program. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:12:50AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For each offending file, there are three possible solutions: 1. Get the author to release source code under a DFSG-free license 2. Move the firmware to non-free, patching the driver to use request_firmware() 3. Delete the driver and firmware entirely. 4. Recognize that the project has been hostage of a few licensing kooks, tell them to fsck off and move on. I don't think the project need anymore such vulgarities, please try to stay polite, reread the social contract, and abide by what you agreed to when you joined debian. Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#383403: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
Package: linux-2.6 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.1 The following 59 files, found in Debian's linux-2.6_2.6.17.orig.tar.gz, apparently contain software in binary form, for which Debian has no corresponding source code. Debian policy states that The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Therefore Debian must not distribute these files. drivers/atm/atmsar11.data drivers/atm/pca200e.data drivers/atm/pca200e_ecd.data drivers/atm/sba200e_ecd.data drivers/char/drm/mga_ucode.h drivers/char/drm/r128_cce.c drivers/char/drm/radeon_cp.c drivers/char/dsp56k.c drivers/char/ip2/fip_firm.h drivers/media/dvb/ttpci/av7110_hw.c drivers/media/dvb/ttusb-budget/dvb-ttusb-dspbootcode.h drivers/media/video/usbvideo/vicam.c drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ffdrv.h drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ltdrv.h drivers/net/bnx2_fw.h drivers/net/cassini.h drivers/net/e100.c drivers/net/hamradio/yam1200.h drivers/net/hamradio/yam9600.h drivers/net/myri_code.h drivers/net/pcmcia/ositech.h drivers/net/starfire_firmware.h drivers/net/tg3.c drivers/net/tokenring/3c359_microcode.h drivers/net/typhoon-firmware.h drivers/scsi/advansys.c drivers/scsi/ql1040_fw.h drivers/scsi/ql12160_fw.h drivers/scsi/ql1280_fw.h drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2100_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2200_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2300_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2322_fw.c drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2400_fw.c drivers/scsi/qlogicpti_asm.c drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h drivers/usb/net/kawethfw.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_boot2.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_boot.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_down2.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_down3.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_down.h drivers/usb/serial/ti_fw_3410.h drivers/usb/serial/ti_fw_5052.h drivers/usb/serial/whiteheat_fw.h sound/isa/sb/sb16/sb16_csp_codecs.h sound/isa/wavefront/wavefront_fx.c sound/oss/maestro3.h sound/oss/ymfpci_image.h sound/oss/yss225.c sound/pci/cs46xx/cs46xx_image.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwc4630.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcasync.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcdma.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcemb80.h sound/pci/cs46xx/imgs/cwcsnoop.h sound/pci/korg1212/korg1212-firmware.h sound/pci/maestro3.c sound/pci/ymfpci/ymfpci_image.h This list is probably not perfect. Corrections are welcome. Additional information is posted at http://doolittle.icarus.com/~larry/fwinventory/2.6.17.html -- System Information: deleted (irrelevant) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
