[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#494120: binary firmware in drivers/media/dvb/frontends/tda10021.c

Robert Millan wrote:

On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 09:34:31AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:

drivers/media/dvb/frontends/tda10021.c (licensed under GPLv2+) contains a
small chunk of binary code:
static u8 tda10021_inittab[0x40]=
{
        0x73, 0x6a, 0x23, 0x0a, 0x02, 0x37, 0x77, 0x1a,
        0x37, 0x6a, 0x17, 0x8a, 0x1e, 0x86, 0x43, 0x40,
	[...]
Since the licensing terms allow redistribution, shipping it is not illegal but
is a DFSG violation.
By "small chunk", you mean 64 bytes of data. That's not a program; that's almost certainly register initialization values, which are data, and there 
is no requirement in the DFSG that arbitrary bits of data (which are too
short and lacking in originality to be covered by copyright anyway) be
distributed in a textual source form.


Hi Steve

You might have a point here; the root of the problem seems to be the definition
of "source code", and the DFSG doesn't resolve this ambiguity.  Some think
"source code" is the preferred form of modification for any form of data, some
think it only applies to certain types of data, etc.  And then even "preferred"
doesn't mean the same to everyone!



Overall, it sounds like a gray area to me.  Has this been discussed in -legal?
It may be a gray area, but normally we expect people to make sane judgements...
Feel free to discuss this in -legal, though that doesn't change the fact that we currently don't expect textual source for arbitrary bits of data. 


You need to find yourself a more appropriate way to express your concerns
about such files


Well, I usually express that I found a bug (or in some -rare!- cases, that I
mistakenly think I found one) by filing it to the BTS.


Ah I expect noone is perfect, but you're close to be an exception?


than by unilaterally declaring them to be release-critical
bugs.


As usual, my assesment of severities is "best-effort".  If a severity is
wrong, we can surely discuss it!


It was not only about the severity, but also about it being a bug...


Do you mind if I reopen with non-RC severity, untill my question above has
been clarified?


No, we don't want to wait till you clarify your question...

Cheers

Luk
Reply to: