From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266888AbUH3GHy (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:07:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267330AbUH3GHy (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:07:54 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.55]:23982 "EHLO ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266888AbUH3GHv (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:07:51 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:08:02 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Proper licensing for binary-only firmware Message-ID: <20040830060802.GA3196@fastmail.fm> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i From: neroden@fastmail.fm (Nathanael Nerode) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This has nothing to do with whether binary firmware is "linked" to the kernel or any such stuff; it's strictly about whether it can be publicly distributed at all. So please don't react before you actually read it. Licensing of sourceless binary microcode in the kernel falls into the following categories: (1) Not explicitly licensed for distribution: Can't legally be distributed unless it isn't subject to copyright. (short constants, etc. obviously aren't copyrightable -- 1K blocks of non-repetative machine code clearly are). Can everyone agree that unlicenced copyrightable material doesn't belong in the kernel and exposes all distributors to lawsuits? (2) Licensed under BSD/MIT/other license which doesn't require source code These can clearly be distributed safely. (3) Supposedly licensed under the GPL. OK. The GPL basically doesn't allow distribution without source (or a three year offer of source, etc.). So what am I supposed to make of a binary-only, sourceless lump of code which claims to be licensed only under the GPL? :-P Legally speaking, that doesn't seem like it gives me a valid license to distribute. Which sucks, and worries me. (If you're going to argue that hex strings in a C file are the source code, recall that source code is defined by the GPL as "preferred form for modification". It doesn't seem reasonable to assume that that is actually the preferred form for modification of a large lump of code. If that's seriously the preferred form for modification, I would not be comfortable unless the copyright holder said so explicitly. Am I wrong here?) However, the copyright holders probably intended to give a license to distribute. So they should be willing to allow the sourceless binaries to be distributed/modified/etc. They just didn't actually issue a license which clearly *does* so. How can we help them to issue a license which correspond to their intention? I can think of several ways: * Ask them to grant a special exception to the GPL to allow the binaries to be distributed/modified without source * Ask them to provide the source (even if it's not buildable with free tools, that would appear to satisfy the GPL) * Ask them to license under BSD/MIT/etc. * Ask them to say that the hex strings really, honestly, are the way they prefer to modify the microcode Do people think that it's reasonable to consider licensing of (creative, subject to copyright) sourceless binary lumps under the "GPL" as a clear distributability problem, and a bug which should be fixed? Or does someone have a legal reference which says we don't have to worry at all? Basically, I'm worried about legal exposure here. -- This space intentionally left blank.