Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 08:16:04AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > 2) firmware under the GPL, but with missing source. The GPL is
> > > free, but the absence of source code for the firmware blobs
> > > makes it a violation of the GPL, and thus undistributable.
> > I was very careful to state that shipped upstream under a
> I don't understand this. You added a couple of lines to Frederik's proposal,
> and those have manifestedly be miscompreheneded, because people seconded it
> while missing the implication for tg3.
The possible implications for tg3 were missed because of a lack of
information about tg3's status, not because of any misunderstanding of the
amended proposal. Larry's webpage documenting the status of firmware listed
the tg3 blob as "BSD-ish". Well, there's obviously nothing BSD-ish about a
license that doesn't grant permission to modify.
But in spite of <[🔎] 20060910091626.GF31496@mauritius.dodds.net>, sent on
September 10th, no mention was made of tg3's current non-free license until
after Manoj's amendment (offered in response to my comments) had been
accepted by Frederik.
Yes, now that we're aware of tg3, that needs to be factored into any plan
which hopes to ensure etch ships with support for installing on the maximum
range of hardware. But I've already outlined a theory under which I think
the tg3 blob would meet the requirements without having to further amend the
proposal.
> > compliant license -- which this case seems to meet. Arguable (and
> > highly improbably), the firmware hex dump could be the preferred form
> The mention of : "Derived from proprietary unpublished source code", in the
> later licence, clearly and without doubt says that this is not the prefered
> source for modification.
Doubts about whether it was the preferred form for modification were never
the basis for deciding to permit binary-only GPL firmware for etch; the
decision was based on the assumption that the authors were acting in good
faith and *intended* to grant us a license permitting redistribution,
failing only due to a technicality.
> Now, the RMs seem to have some notion, from the hurried discussion we had
> yesterday, that they seem to interpret your post as allowing to distribute
> sourceless GPLed firmware, because the GPL licence is DFSG free.
Er, yes, because that's what the resolution *says*. It says that for
firmware in etch we're only going to worry about licenses, *not* source.
> I also strongly dislike the notion that it is acceptable to have a sourceless
> firmware (and yes, if i say sourceless, it means the hexdump itself is *NOT*
> the prefered source), as long as the actual licence is one that is DFSG free,
> even though the sourceless nature of it violates the GPL or the DFSG.
What in the world is your point? How do arguments that GPL firmware blobs
are a GPL violation do *anything* to advance the goal of shipping etch with
full hardware support?
You keep arguing against this amended proposal by presenting reasons why
sourceless firmware is bad. These aren't arguments in favor of the original
proposal: the original proposal would have allowed (or even required!) even
*more* bad stuff in main, like firmware that has no source *and* has a
license prohibiting modification. So how do you figure that telling us
about everything that's wrong with sourceless firmware is an argument in
favor of the original proposal, when the amended proposal is aimed at
permitting *just* the specific DFSG problems that affect sourceless
firmware?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: