Bug#446028: tg3 firmware - was (Fw: [CASE#221365]: Closed - need firmware files)
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 01:14, Neil Williams wrote: >> * Firmware is: >> * Derived from proprietary unpublished source code, > electrical equipment or hardware tools, not text editors. As such, not > all firmware can be expected to have any source code. In this case, as > we have a declaration that source code was involved, that doesn't apply > here. Those tools often have source code like verilog or vhdl, but that doesn't change the problem that this blob can be put into any recognizable form. I wouldn't rule it out is the statement seems to imply that. It says derived from not compiled from. Even the person that made it may not know. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#446028: tg3 firmware - was (Fw: [CASE#221365]: Closed - need firmware files)
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 22:34:15 + "brian m. carlson" wrote: > * The firmware actually has a separate license that reads as follows: > > * Firmware is: > * Derived from proprietary unpublished source code, OK, I wasn't aware of that. With the clear statement that source code was involved in the derivation of the firmware, I'd agree that the effect of the GR is that this firmware needs source code to be in main. > * Copyright (C) 2000-2003 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. > >This license does not allow for modification. Therefore, Debian can >legally distribute the firmware, but only in non-free. I have no >objection to Debian distributing this firmware in non-free; >nevertheless, as I stated in my original post, whether Debian >distributes this firmware is mostly irrelevant with regard to having a >functioning tg3 driver. > > I don't know about you, but I'd much prefer to modify any sort of > program, firmware or not, using C or assembly rather than editing the > binary directly. I suspect that this is the case for any reasonable > programmer. I still hanker after the days of tweaking things in the assembly or hacking around in a compiled binary with a hex editor. As long as source code exists, the effort required becomes a pointless diversion but there remain instances where binary constructs are not compiled, they are created by test and experimentation according to the design (and more often the errata) of a particular piece of hardware using electrical equipment or hardware tools, not text editors. As such, not all firmware can be expected to have any source code. In this case, as we have a declaration that source code was involved, that doesn't apply here. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpdOcSrea9G3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#446028: tg3 firmware - was (Fw: [CASE#221365]: Closed - need firmware files)
On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 03:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Apr 10, "brian m. carlson" wrote: > > > I don't know about you, but I'd much prefer to modify any sort of > > program, firmware or not, using C or assembly rather than editing the > > binary directly. I suspect that this is the case for any reasonable > > programmer. Thus, we do not have the preferred form for modification, > > and thus, we cannot distribute it under the GPLv2. > Thank you for the great work you are doing to improve Debian. Brian is right; binary-only firmware generally can't be distributed under GPLv2. I forget what the status of tg3 is but Michael Chan of Broadcom has worked with us on separating bnx2 and bnx2x firmware under an appropriate licence, so I expect it will be possible to fix any remaining problems with tg3 firmware licencing. You are doing nothing but insulting people who point out the legal and ethical issues with embedded firmware blobs, and that certainly doesn't improve Debian. Ben. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#446028: tg3 firmware - was (Fw: [CASE#221365]: Closed - need firmware files)
On Apr 10, "brian m. carlson" wrote: > I don't know about you, but I'd much prefer to modify any sort of > program, firmware or not, using C or assembly rather than editing the > binary directly. I suspect that this is the case for any reasonable > programmer. Thus, we do not have the preferred form for modification, > and thus, we cannot distribute it under the GPLv2. Thank you for the great work you are doing to improve Debian. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#446028: tg3 firmware - was (Fw: [CASE#221365]: Closed - need firmware files)
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:06:55PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:41:12 + "brian m. carlson" wrote: [CC'd -legal as well; you probably want to follow up there.] I don't need to be CC'd, thanks. M-F-T set accordingly. On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Daniel Knabl wrote: >Seems to me that Broadcom Inc. does really allow Debian to >re-distribute the included firmware explicitly. The GPLv2 requires that distributors provide source code in certain circumstances. Source code is defined in the GPLv2 as the preferred form for modification. Unless Broadcom uses a hex editor to modify the firmware, Debian does not have the source code (the preferred form for modification) and therefore cannot provide it upon request. Since Debian cannot comply with the license, it is not permitted to distribute it at all. Doing so would be copyright infringement. That wasn't the result of the GR: Option 5 "Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise" I'm going to ignore for the moment the fact that this title has a negligible relation to the proposal's content and that the actual proposal supports my point. There are two issues here: * Broadcom says that the entire driver (presumably including firmware) is GPLv2. Because we know that it is not shipped with source code (see below), we know that this is insufficient to make the firmware legally distributable. * The firmware actually has a separate license that reads as follows: * Firmware is: *Derived from proprietary unpublished source code, *Copyright (C) 2000-2003 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. This license does not allow for modification. Therefore, Debian can legally distribute the firmware, but only in non-free. I have no objection to Debian distributing this firmware in non-free; nevertheless, as I stated in my original post, whether Debian distributes this firmware is mostly irrelevant with regard to having a functioning tg3 driver. Do we know if there is "source code" for this firmware. There is no proof that the firmware does not comply with the GPLv2 AFAICT, therefore the GR requires that we assume that the firmware does comply, whatever that means with regard to the "preferred form for modification". Why assume that using a hex editor is impossible? I'm not saying that using a hex editor is impossible. I'm saying that there's source code: * Firmware is: *Derived from proprietary unpublished source code, *Copyright (C) 2000-2003 Broadcom Corporation. I don't know about you, but I'd much prefer to modify any sort of program, firmware or not, using C or assembly rather than editing the binary directly. I suspect that this is the case for any reasonable programmer. Thus, we do not have the preferred form for modification, and thus, we cannot distribute it under the GPLv2. This issue is completely separate from whether the firmware has source code according to the DFSG. How can it be separate? The assertion from your reply was that there was source code behind the hex. Is there *evidence* and *proof* that this is the case? Yes. Why would Broadcom lie about there being source code? -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only troff on top of XML: http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc/code/thwack OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#446028: tg3 firmware - was (Fw: [CASE#221365]: Closed - need firmware files)
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:41:12 + "brian m. carlson" wrote: > [CC'd -legal as well; you probably want to follow up there.] > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Daniel Knabl wrote: > >Seems to me that Broadcom Inc. does really allow Debian to > >re-distribute the included firmware explicitly. > > The GPLv2 requires that distributors provide source code in certain > circumstances. Source code is defined in the GPLv2 as the preferred > form for modification. Unless Broadcom uses a hex editor to modify the > firmware, Debian does not have the source code (the preferred form for > modification) and therefore cannot provide it upon request. Since > Debian cannot comply with the license, it is not permitted to distribute > it at all. Doing so would be copyright infringement. That wasn't the result of the GR: Option 5 "Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise" http://www.uk.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_003 Do we know if there is "source code" for this firmware. There is no proof that the firmware does not comply with the GPLv2 AFAICT, therefore the GR requires that we assume that the firmware does comply, whatever that means with regard to the "preferred form for modification". Why assume that using a hex editor is impossible? > This issue is completely separate from whether the firmware has source > code according to the DFSG. How can it be separate? The assertion from your reply was that there was source code behind the hex. Is there *evidence* and *proof* that this is the case? -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgpxRW4kwBJz3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#446028: tg3 firmware - was (Fw: [CASE#221365]: Closed - need firmware files)
[CC'd -legal as well; you probably want to follow up there.] On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Daniel Knabl wrote: Seems to me that Broadcom Inc. does really allow Debian to re-distribute the included firmware explicitly. The GPLv2 requires that distributors provide source code in certain circumstances. Source code is defined in the GPLv2 as the preferred form for modification. Unless Broadcom uses a hex editor to modify the firmware, Debian does not have the source code (the preferred form for modification) and therefore cannot provide it upon request. Since Debian cannot comply with the license, it is not permitted to distribute it at all. Doing so would be copyright infringement. If Broadcom were to license the firmware under a revised BSD license or another license that does not require providing source code, then Debian would be permitted to distribute it in non-free. This issue is completely separate from whether the firmware has source code according to the DFSG. As a practical matter, only certain very old revisions of the hardware actually need the firmware at all for basic functionality. Most hardware using the tg3 driver (like my laptop) are completely functional without any firmware at all. Certain extra features, like TCP Segment Offloading (TSO), are enabled by the firmware, but these features are not required for basic functionality. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only troff on top of XML: http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc/code/thwack OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#446028: tg3 firmware - was (Fw: [CASE#221365]: Closed - need firmware files)
Seems to me that Broadcom Inc. does really allow Debian to re-distribute the included firmware explicitly. regards Daniel Begin forwarded message(s): Datum: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 05:02:23 -0700 Von: nic_technology_supp...@broadcom.com An: dan...@tirolinux.net Betreff: [CASE#221365]: Closed - need firmware files Update Time: Apr 9 2009 5:00AM PST/PDT Field: Status Old Value: Resolved New Value: Closed -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Apr 2 2009 1:21PM PST/PDT Our Linux driver as a whole is released under GPL license; therefore, I don't see any issue with re-distributing the driver. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* dan...@tirolinux.net Apr 2 2009 12:00PM PST/PDT So can you please clarify that to me and especially to the Debian Maintainers: Is the Debian project allowed to redistribute the firmware included in your drivers? Anyway, what would stand against the right to re-distribute firmware for a product/device that is already property of the customer who bought it? kind regards -- Daniel Knabl www.tirolinux.net dan...@tirolinux.net PGP/GPG Fingerprint - please send signed mail only A069 671B 39F2 E9B9 FB34 68BB 4BEC 1344 C8A4 3F0B -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Apr 2 2009 10:35AM PST/PDT These micro-codes are embedded into our drivers, we do not provide these separately. --- ISSUE SUMMARY --- Project: NIC Tech Product: BCM5906 Item: Linux 32 Status: Closed Requester: Daniel Knabl Company: Broadcom Corporation Req. Priority: Low Summary: need firmware files Description: Debian does not provide firmware files, because they are not provided with source code which is necessary because of GPL. please provide the following firmware: tso-1.4.0, tg3_tso5.bin, tg3_tso.bin, tg3.bin Operating System: Linux 32 Additional OS Info: Debian Lenny 5.0 System Model: Lenovo 3000 N200 Device Type: On Board Driver Version: 3.92.1 Ethernet Controller: BCM5906 --- To view attachments for this case click on this link: https://support.broadcom.com/IMS/Public/IssueAttachments.aspx?IssueId=221365&AccessCode=39902503480787040 --- --- INSTRUCTIONS: To update this case, reply to this email maintaining the full Case ID [including square parentheses] in the subject field. To avoid cluttering the "Notes" field, please delete the original message text before sending your reply. Original MailTo: dan...@tirolinux.net -- Daniel Knabl www.tirolinux.net dan...@tirolinux.net PGP/GPG Fingerprint - please send signed mail only A069 671B 39F2 E9B9 FB34 68BB 4BEC 1344 C8A4 3F0B signature.asc Description: PGP signature
