On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 04:30:15PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > > > If a binary says to be shipped under the terms of the GPL but comes > > without source, is this suitable for main? > > As said before, the definition of "source" in the GPL is not the > kill-them-all definition that you try to see there. This whole issue would be less of a problem if people would not release things blindly under the GPL, while not ensuring that the GPL's conditions are satisfiable. This is definitely a problem for upstream to sort out if they want their software distributed with confidence. What is the point of using the GPL on something that nobody is going to bother modifying anyway? Not only because it is not distributed in a form suitable for modification (nor would we probably have the tools to build it even if it were), but also because very little is typically known about the DSP or custom processors that these devices use. If it is not intended for end-user modification (but the vendor does not intend to prevent the user from doing so if he really wants to), they should use a different license besides the GPL. Essentially, they are saying "you may distribute this file under the GPL if and only if you satisfy these conditions, that we have not given you the means to satisfy". The idea that they have given permission implicitly by releasing the code at all is a falsehood; they have given us permission under unsatisfiable terms. The intent may be noble, but without a written statement that they will not consider the GPL to be a contradiction in the case of their firmware, what is to be done? Management changes, ownership changes, shareholder attitudes change. The later owners may not be so nice, not only sueing us for wrongly distributing the code, but refusing our requests to fix the license. Getting the license fixed is something that we may only be able to do at the current moment, or never. The rebuildable firmware for aic7xxx included with the kernel is a shining example of what we would prefer vendors to do, and something that is furthermore distributable under GPL with no questions. As for the claim that there is a lot of talking and not a lot of doing from this side, there is a reason for that. What kind of leverage does some random OSS Joe have with the companies involved? The only people who are going to get anything done are the people who are already in contact with these vendors and known to be representing their interests in the OSS world by writing drivers and documentation for their hardware. They are the ones that need to get these things fixed, because they are the ones with the best means to do so. -- Ryan Underwood, <nemesis@icequake.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature