Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Le lundi 04 avril 2005 à 21:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit : > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On Apr 04, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > What if we don't want to do so? I know I personally posted a solution > > Then probably the extremists in Debian will manage to kill your driver, > > like they did with tg3 and others. > > And as they are doing with e.g. the complete gcc documentation. > > No documentation for the C compiler (not even a documentation of the > options) will be neither fun for the users of Debian nor for the Debian > maintainers - but it's the future of Debian... You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of the kernel. Full stop. End of story. Bye bye. Redhat and SuSE may still be willing to distribute such binary images, but it isn't our problem. Putting the firmwares outside the kernel makes them distributable. Some distributions will want to include them, some others not. But the important point is that it makes that redistribution legal. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Le mardi 05 avril 2005 Ã 11:50 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a Ãcrit : > >> You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has > >> nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of > >> firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of > >> the kernel. Full stop. End of story. Bye bye. Redhat and SuSE may still > >> be willing to distribute such binary images, but it isn't our problem. > >> > > Wrong! It is perfectly legal in the United States, and I'm pretty > sure in your country, to distribute or redistribute copyrighted > works. Otherwise there wouldn't be any bookstores or newspaper > stands. It is not legal to distribute the mix of a GPL software (the Linux kernel) and a proprietary file (the firmware). I wasn't aware of the "mere aggregation" interpretation, and I'm probably a bit late to say I disagree with it - mainly because you'd have a hard time convincing a court this is the case. > There is nothing about firmware that is any different than any > other component of a product. If the product was legally obtained > and it requires firmware to run, then there are no special > considerations about how one inserts the firmware into the > product. Indeed, but that's not what I'm talking about. > If you are a GPL-religious-zealot who believes that you are > supposed to get the technical design (i.e. the software schematics) > of the hardware device for free so you can copy it, then you are > going to have to learn something about intellectual property. Maybe you should try to understand what people are saying before teaching them anything. > The firmware, in most cases, are the bits generated by a design > program that creates the function of the device. It's what the > manufacturer paid 5-10 engineers over a period of a year or so > to produce. The rest of the design is just some chips you > can get off-the-shelf. Even if the manufacturer said; "Here you > are You can have the design". You don't have the > "compilers" and other stuff necessary to turn this design > into the firmware unless you planned to steal the design. > > So, you either accept the firmware component, thanking the > manufacturer for it, or you go cry foul someplace else. This > whole firmware thing is a non-issue, blown way out of > proportion by people who don't have a clue. You are completely missing the point. I don't care whether the firmwares should be free, or whether they could be free. The fact is they are not free, and Debian doesn't distribute non-free software in the "main" archive. The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people disagree with that assertion now. Finally, you shouldn't forget that, technically speaking, using hotplug for uploading the firmware is much more flexible and elegant than including it in the kernel. Upgrading the firmware and the module should be two independent operations. People who are advocating the current situation are refusing technical improvements just because they are brought by people they find convenient to call "zealots". -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Le mardi 05 avril 2005 Ã 14:17 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a Ãcrit : > > You are completely missing the point. I don't care whether the firmwares > > should be free, or whether they could be free. The fact is they are not > > free, and Debian doesn't distribute non-free software in the "main" > > archive. The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives > > an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people > > disagree with that assertion now. > > As previously explained, if I buy a screen-card I get a driver > that will allow it to run under Windows. If I extract the stuff > from that driver that allows me to run it under Linux, that > constitutes fair use. Otherwise there are criminal issues like > restraint-of-trade and similar problems for the manufacturer. > That firmware is free for use on/in the device you purchased. You are mixing free beer and free speech. Of course I'm free to use it in the device I purchased, but it is nevertheless unsuitable for the Debian main archive, where there is only free software. > > Finally, you shouldn't forget that, technically speaking, using hotplug > > for uploading the firmware is much more flexible and elegant than > > including it in the kernel. Upgrading the firmware and the module should > > be two independent operations. People who are advocating the current > > situation are refusing technical improvements just because they are > > brought by people they find convenient to call "zealots". > > Throwing in a bit of truth to a pile of bullshit still leaves > the bullshit. It isn't relevant to the issue whether or not > upgrading firmware as a separate function from loading a module > is "good" or "bad". Of course it is. If the proposed solution is technically better and pleases the so-called zealots, why are you discussing it at all? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Le mardi 05 avril 2005 Ã 12:50 -0600, Chris Friesen a Ãcrit : > Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives > > an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people > > disagree with that assertion now. > > This is only true if the result is considered a "derivative work" of the > gpl'd code. > > The GPL states "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based > on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on > a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other > work under the scope of this License." > > Since the main cpu does not actually run the binary firmware, the fact > that it lives in main memory with the code that the cpu *does* run is > irrelevent. In this case, the Debian stance is that the kernel proper > and the binary firmware are "merely aggregated" in a volume of storage ( > ie. system memory). It merely depends on the definition of "aggregation". I'd say that two works that are only aggregated can be easily distinguished and separated. This is not the case for a binary kernel module, from which you cannot easily extract the firmware and code parts. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Le mercredi 06 avril 2005 à 02:10 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit : > > It merely depends on the definition of "aggregation". I'd say that two > > works that are only aggregated can be easily distinguished and > > separated. This is not the case for a binary kernel module, from which > > you cannot easily extract the firmware and code parts. > > Josselin, please read the thread i linked to in debian-legal, and as nobody > really gave reason to oppose it, i believe we have consensus that those > firmware blobs constitute mere agregation, provided they are clearly > identified and properly licenced, which they are not always. The fact that nobody cared to answer you shouldn't be considered as any kind of approval for your sayings. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 09:03 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a écrit : > Well it doesn't make any difference. If GPL has degenerated to > where one can't upload microcode to a device as part of its > initialization, without having the "source" that generated that > microcode, we are in a lot of hurt. Intel isn't going to give their > designs away. The GPL doesn't forbid that. The GPL forbids to put this microcode directly in the same binary as the GPL code. Of course, nothing forbids some GPL'ed code to take a binary elsewhere and to upload it into the hardware. At least that's my opinion; AIUI, Sven Luther believes it is possible if the firmware has a decent (but not necessarily free) license. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit : > > You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has > > nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of > > firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of > > the kernel. Full stop. End of story. Bye bye. Redhat and SuSE may still > > be willing to distribute such binary images, but it isn't our problem. > > It's a grey area. > > debian-legal did pick one of the possible opinions on this matter. When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation, but to a court. > Is it true, that the removal of much of the documentation in Debian is > scheduled soon because it's covered by the GFDL, that this is called an > "editorial change", and that Debian doesn't actually care that this will > e.g. remove all documentation about available options of the standard C > compiler used by and shipped with Debian? The situation changed only in the mind of the person who was the release manager at that time. The "old" wording is "Debian will remain 100% free software", and he understood that as "100% of software in Debian will remain free". The common interpretation is that this wording doesn't allow GFDL documentation either. The fact these documents are very useful is irrelevant: the GFDL is a real piece of crap, only a few fools at the FSF are really arguing it is a free license. Instead of babbling, some people have started to discuss this with upstream, and are trying to come up with a GPLed documentation for GCC. This is much more constructive than repeating again and again "Bleh, Debian are a bunch of bigots who don't care of the compiler being documented." > Is it true, that Debian will leave users with hardware affected by the > firmware problem without a working installer in Debian 3.1? The case of hardware really needing a firwmare to work *and* needed at installation time is rare. I've only heard of some tg3-based cards. Most of them will work without the firmware, and for the few remaining ones, it only means network installation won't work. > The point is simply, that Debian does more and more look dogmatic at > it's definition of "free software" without caring about the effects to > it's users. Being careless in the definition of "free software" is a real disservice to users. It makes them rely on e.g. non-free documentation for everyday use. > As a contrast, read the discussion between Christoph and Arjan in a part > of this thread how to move firmware out of kernel drivers without > problems for the users. This might not happen today, but it's better for > the users. Some Debian developers have been writing such patches so that we can still run Linux on this hardware, long before the topic was raised on the LKML. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 Ã 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a Ãcrit : > > When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the > > more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation, > > but to a court. > > If Debian was at least consistent. > > Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues > than RedHat? Because we already know that patents on MP3 decoders are not enforceable. Furthermore, the holders of these patents have repeatedly stated they won't ask for fees on MP3 decoders. > How do you install Debian on a harddisk behind a SCSI controller who's > driver was removed from the Debian kernels due to it's firmware? Which SCSI controller are you talking about? > > Being careless in the definition of "free software" is a real disservice > > to users. It makes them rely on e.g. non-free documentation for everyday > > use. > >... > > Documentation is "software"? Sure. > Non-free documentation is better than no documentation. > > Non-free software has several problems, but some of them like the right > to do modifications are less important for documentation, since e.g. > fixes for security bugs are not an issue. > > Removing the available documentation without an equal replacement is a > real disserve for your users. GFDL documentation will still be available in the non-free archive. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 Ã 20:01 +0200, Adrian Bunk a Ãcrit : > > Because we already know that patents on MP3 decoders are not > > enforceable. Furthermore, the holders of these patents have repeatedly > > How do you know the patents aren't enforceable? Because decoding a MP3 is a trivial operation. > > stated they won't ask for fees on MP3 decoders. > > http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html > > talks about 0.75 Dollar for a decoder. I can't find the reference, but IIRC it was stated later that they don't want to apply this to free (as in beer) software. > > > Documentation is "software"? > > > > Sure. > > Every book in my book shelf is software? If you digitalize it, yes. > That doesn't match how people outside of Debian use the word "software". When we tried to define what is "software", the only acceptable definitions we found were things like "every kind of numeric stuff" or "everything that can be included in Debian". You can try to come up with your own, you'll see it's not that easy. > > GFDL documentation will still be available in the non-free archive. > > Assuming you have an online connection and a friend told you how to > manually edit your /etc/apt/sources.list for non-free. > > But where's the documentation if you don't have an online connection but > only the dozen binary CDs of Debian? Without the GFDL documentation, you'll have the right to lock the room in which you put the CDs. The GFDL forbids that, because you'd be "using technical measures to obstruct further copying" of the documentations. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
