Re: non-free firmware
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 06:24:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 04:35:40PM +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:58:16PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 09:50:47PM +0100, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> > > > Hallo,
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:10:46AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 10:04:45AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > > > Now, my question is: Is there still work open? If so, what? Or is the
> > > > > > current removal of firmware enough, and we can relax on this topic?
> > > >
> > > > From my point of view, the situation currently looks like this:
> > > >
> > > > 1. tg3 and qla2xxx driver status has been solved: upstream has
> > > > relicensed the drivers - the sourcecode is licensed under the GPL, the
> > > > firmware data is freely distributable as an aggregate work.
> > >
> > > The firmware is still source-less, and it is not data, as it represents
> > > microcode destined to be run on the controller it is uploaded to.
> >
> > we all agree that a line needs to be drawn.
> > The stripped firmwares have questionable licenses
> > and needs to be put in non-free.
>
> the problem is that there are two issues :
>
> 1) non-distributable modules, because the licence was messy.
>
> 2) distributable modules with non-free firmware.
>
> tg3 and qla2xxx used to be in the first class, and due to relicencing they now
> are in the second class, that don't make them free by any stretch of the
> imagination.
the current stripping is chosen randomly by Xu.
the stripped usb acenic drivers license is not that bad,
it is distributable.
current fact is that the qlaxxx firmware is gpl,
so on has all it's right in main.
> so, right now, if we are true to ourselves and follow the GR, we would have to
> put tg3 and qla2xxx modules in non-free, and totally remove the messed up
> licenced modules. If we don't want to do that, the most honest way to handle
> it is to get another GR out the door,explaining that this is not easily
> possible or convenient at this time, and asking for an explicit exception for
> kernel firmware. I would second such a GR.
that's one outcome if one follows you radical thoughts.
nobody else seem to back your non-free position,
so i'm far from certain that it's the one shared by the d-k team.
> > kernel.org is distributing all of them.
> > i'm sure that a user expects a package called linux-image to contain
> > tg3 for example.
>
> Sure, but what has this to do with anything ?
yes if you care about what you are distributing,
you shouldn't stripp random usefull bits.
none of our users appreciated the non-free linux packet that
contained tg3 back then, or do you want the kernel image to depend
on a non-free package?
> Also, distributing those from non-free, and having d-i seamlessly manage this,
> is probably not such a problem for our users, and they can then chose to have
> the non-free firmware or not. That is why we voted to keep non-free after all,
> isn't it ?
the opinion of the release manager didn't second your arguments.
--
maks
Reply to: