Re: Bug#239952: kernel-source-2.6.4: qla2xxx contains non-free
I wrote:
>Some people have suggested that this interpretation would have dire
>consequences but I don't see how it would.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> This interpretation (ie, the author gets to decide what the preferred
> form for modification is) /does/ have bad consequences. If I compile a
> binary and then statically link in, say, GNU readline, I shouldn't be
> able to get away with claiming that I only need to provide the source to
> readline since the binary code is my preferred form of modification.
This case is different from the one I was considering. The case
I was considering involved firmware that doesn't get linked to any
other code. In that case the only license that matters is the
license on the firmware code.
In the case you describe the program is linked with some code licensed
under the GPL by another party. The license of that other party
restricts what we can do with the derived work. That party provided
C source, so the derived work can only be distributed along with all
its C sources, if any.
I wrote:
>Basically my argument is that authors should be able to use the GPL
>while remaining free to choose which forms of their program that
>they publish.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> In itself, this is arguably not a problem. However, in the case of the
> kernel, you're linking your code against code written by a large set of
> other copyright holders. If I supplied a binary blob in a C wrapper and
> claimed that this was my preferred form for modification, there'd be no
> realistic way that the other copyright holders could agree to allow that
> into the kernel.
Right. I think that firmware has to be stored in files and loaded from
user space if Debian is to avoid violating the licenses of the authors
of Linux. Furthermore, since the firmware doesn't come with source, it
fails DFSG2 and the files must be kept in non-free.
> Your argument creates a class of GPLed code that can't
> be linked against any other GPLed code
Agreed. I was talking about firmware.
> and it's hard to see how we
> could realistically claim that that would be Free.
I'll leave that question aside. :)
--
Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
Reply to: