Humberto Massa wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:Humberto Massa wrote:
<cut>
the pf4m. It's only the opposite if the copyright holder (Qlogic, IBM, whoever) says "no, we have a XX assembly file around here, but we won't show you." /Then/ it's undistributable. Until then, if it's in a file, with valid copyright assignment and license, we _must_ assume it's the pf4m IMHO.The copyright holder is perfectly free to put a GPL header on code that can't be distributed under the terms of the GPL, and can then give that code to somebody else.
<there is more, but cut>I think this is somewhat difficult, legally, at least down here in Brasil. It's a serious case of the burden of proving that something is *not* the pf4m falling on who thinks it, and absolutely not on the copyright holder. Rephrasing: at least in what refers to GPL section 2a, I don't think it's possible a copyright holder put a GPL header in its code and later say "oooh, sorry, this was not GPL'd." More: I don't think it's possible a copyright holder put a GPL header in its code and, at least that code in that format not be the "Preferred Form 4 Modification".
Net result: if the notice is there, for all legal effects:(1) the thing is GPL'd forever /unless/ the recipient of the file breaks the GPL; (2) if there is some kind of blob inside, the burden of proving that blob is a GPL-violation in other parts of the global stuff is on the person who alleges it; (3) in the case of firmware and linux kernel, there is a complication, namely _the code in the blob does not link to the kernel_; so, it is *not* in *any* way a derived work on the kernel;
My conclusions:1. it's a firmware, inside a GPL-d file, unless you can prove it's not source code, it's the source code and you have *free software*; 2. it's not a GPL violation on the rest of the kernel, even if you prove it's not source code... but it starts begin non-DFSG-free software.
-- br,M