Re: Release team position on the state of kernel firmware, post GR2006-007
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 09:04:40PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> sven.luther@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> > * Firmware is:
> > * Derived from proprietary unpublished source code,
> > * Copyright (C) 2000-2003 Broadcom Corporation.
> > *
> > * Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware
> > * data in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this copyright
> > * notice is accompanying it.
> > */
> >
> >Notice how clearly it states that there is *SOURCE CODE*, and thus the
> >previous license, which is GPL, is violated, and you can't possible close your
> >eyes on this one, claiming that the hexcode may be the prefered form of
> >modification.
>
> It also says that for the purpose of the license it is "firmware data",
> and the GPL does not require source for data.
Sure, and for the CD burner, windows is data too, right ? We all know you are
of the opinion to consider firmware as data and ignore the fact that there is
indeed source code, but i fear that this position will not stand long before a
judge should we ever go this way.
Notice how this same argument was used to demostrate that the firmware is not
a derivative work of the kenrel (and vice-versa), but it is not enough to make
the said firmware DFSG free. The above license fails two DFSG clauses, the no
source one and the modification rights one.
> FWIW, I fully agree with the position of the release team (but I still
> believe that not distributing the other firmwares is stupid and does not
> help our goals).
I also mostly agree with the result of the release team position, i just find
it sad that we had to vote a resolution which contradicted directly in at
least two places what is essentially the position of the release team and the
kernel team, while a better and cleaner resolution was being prepared.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: