Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

Richard B. Johnson
2005-04-05T19:59:27Z

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed, Size: 4365 bytes --]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Josselin Mouette wrote:

> Le mardi 05 avril 2005 ÿÿ 11:50 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a ÿÿcrit :
>>>> 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.
>

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.

> 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".

> --
> .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\
> : :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
> `. `' joss@debian.org
> `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
>

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.11 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by Dictator Bush.
98.36% of all statistics are fiction.