Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] package/dvb-firmware: new package

["Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>]

Bernd, Thomas, All,

On 2022-12-27 22:43 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2022 19:03:53 +0100
> Bernd Kuhls <bernd.kuhls@t-online.de> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Bernd Kuhls <bernd.kuhls@t-online.de>
> Do we know why these firmware files are not part of the linux-firmware
> project? They are needed in conjunction with which kernel drivers?

And there is some overlap. For example, dvb-usb-dib0700-1.20.fw is
present in both packages.

> > +DVB_FIRMWARE_VERSION = 1.4.2
> > +DVB_FIRMWARE_SITE = $(call github,LibreELEC,dvb-firmware,$(DVB_FIRMWARE_VERSION))
> > +DVB_FIRMWARE_LICENSE = PROPRIETARY
> > +DVB_FIRMWARE_REDISTRIBUTE = NO
> 
> This DVB_FIRMWARE_REDISTRIBUTE = NO is not good, as it would actually
> encourage people to violate the license of those firmware files. Indeed
> what DVB_FIRMWARE_REDISTRIBUTE = NO says is "to not mention this
> package in the manifest" and "do not copy the license files".

Wrong. _REDISTRIBUTE = NO does not exclude the package from the manifest
or from copying the license files; it only restricts copying the source
tarball and the applied patches. The entry in the manifest is still
added, and the license files are still copied.

See the comment in package/pkg-generic@1137:

  1137 # We save the license files for any kind of package: normal, local,
  1138 # overridden, or non-redistributable alike.
  1139 # The reason to save license files even for no-redistribute packages
  1140 # is that the license still applies to the files distributed as part
  1141 # of the rootfs, even if the sources are not themselves redistributed.

> However,
> several license files in dvb-firmware explicitly *require* that the
> license file should be distributed.
> 
> Quoting from LICENCE.go7007:
> 
> =====
> The firmware files included in the firmware/ directory may be freely
> redistributed only in conjunction with this document; but modification,
> tampering and reverse engineering are prohibited.
> =====
> 
> Quoting from LICENCE.xc5000
> 
> =====
> // Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software, only
> // for use with Xceive ICs, for any purpose with or without fee is hereby
> // granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission
> // notice appear in all source code copies.
> =====

"all source code copies" would not apply to binary files, I would say.

> Quoting from LICENCE.siano
> 
> =====
> * Redistributions must reproduce the above copyright notice and the
> following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
> provided with the distribution.
> =====
> 
> If we want to create a package for this properly, we need to have a
> mapping between the firmware files and the specific license file that
> applies to them, so that we know which conditions apply to which
> firmware file. As it is done today in this Github repo, it looks like
> some firmware files are random binaries from the Internet, with no
> clear licensing... which makes their redistribution not legal.

I had a first look at that package a while back too, and it is a bit of
a mess license-wise.

At the very least, indeed, we should restrict the way the files are
installed, a bit like we do for linux-firmware.

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 561 099 427 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot