On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:41:12 +0000 "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> wrote: > [CC'd -legal as well; you probably want to follow up there.] > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Daniel Knabl wrote: > >Seems to me that Broadcom Inc. does really allow Debian to > >re-distribute the included firmware explicitly. > > The GPLv2 requires that distributors provide source code in certain > circumstances. Source code is defined in the GPLv2 as the preferred > form for modification. Unless Broadcom uses a hex editor to modify the > firmware, Debian does not have the source code (the preferred form for > modification) and therefore cannot provide it upon request. Since > Debian cannot comply with the license, it is not permitted to distribute > it at all. Doing so would be copyright infringement. That wasn't the result of the GR: Option 5 "Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise" http://www.uk.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_003 Do we know if there is "source code" for this firmware. There is no proof that the firmware does not comply with the GPLv2 AFAICT, therefore the GR requires that we assume that the firmware does comply, whatever that means with regard to the "preferred form for modification". Why assume that using a hex editor is impossible? > This issue is completely separate from whether the firmware has source > code according to the DFSG. How can it be separate? The assertion from your reply was that there was source code behind the hex. Is there *evidence* and *proof* that this is the case? -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
Attachment:
pgpbs8aH70ZmS.pgp
Description: PGP signature