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

Re: Bug#239952: kernel-source-2.6.4: qla2xxx contains non-free firmware



On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 25, Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de> wrote:
> > It's a big difference if we _have_ it (e.g. also microcode in the
> > CPU, BIOS, etc.) on our local machine, or if Debian distributes it
> > in binary form.
> No, there is no difference.

Wait, let me get this straight:

There's no difference between "having non-free works on a personal
machine" and "Debian distributing distributing non-free works"?

> You may choose to pretend that it does not by removing it from
> debian, but you will be still using non-free code.

I hope no one here is pretending that some hardware may not require
non-free code when in fact it does. The two issues are: 1) Can Debian
distribute the code?  [So far, I'm inclined to say no.] 2) Should
Debian distribute the code? [The DFSG leads me to believe no, but I'm
open to being convinced either way.] Clearly, in order for us to
distribute, we need to answer both questions in the affirmative.

> > The solution here would be to ask upstream for disclosure of source code
>
> Dream on... For a few devices it could happen, maybe. But for many
> of them this is not possible.

It's not that it's not possible, it's that upstream may not want to
disclose the source. There's a huge difference between the two.

The whole point is to attempt to work with upstream to free the
firmware. Quite often it's something that they just haven't thought
about and/or gone through the legal formalities to take care of
it. Regardless, giving up before asking them isn't going to result in
any changes in the situation.

> Sometimes because the firmware is a real RTOS, 

I'm not sure at all what the firmware being a RTOS has to do with it's
distributability.

> or because of national regulations

I'm also unaware of any US or CA regulations[1] that would permit
distributing binary firmware but not the source to that firmware.

> or because even the hardware manufacturer does not have the source.

Since QLogic owns the copyright, it would be quite surprising if they
did not also control the source. Obviously, if the manufacturer
doesn't control the source, than we need to communicate with whoever
does.


Don Armstrong

1: QLogic is a California Corporation with headquarters in Aliso Viejo.
-- 
Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for
the people.
 -- Oscar Wilde

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: