Bug#494120: binary firmware in drivers/media/dvb/frontends/tda10021.c

[Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>]

On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 09:34:31AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > drivers/media/dvb/frontends/tda10021.c (licensed under GPLv2+) contains a
> > small chunk of binary code:
> 
> > static u8 tda10021_inittab[0x40]=
> > {
> >         0x73, 0x6a, 0x23, 0x0a, 0x02, 0x37, 0x77, 0x1a,
> >         0x37, 0x6a, 0x17, 0x8a, 0x1e, 0x86, 0x43, 0x40,
> > 	[...]
> 
> > Since the licensing terms allow redistribution, shipping it is not illegal but
> > is a DFSG violation.
> 
> By "small chunk", you mean 64 bytes of data.  That's not a program; that's 
> almost certainly register initialization values, which are data, and there
> is no requirement in the DFSG that arbitrary bits of data (which are too
> short and lacking in originality to be covered by copyright anyway) be
> distributed in a textual source form.

Hi Steve

You might have a point here; the root of the problem seems to be the definition
of "source code", and the DFSG doesn't resolve this ambiguity.  Some think
"source code" is the preferred form of modification for any form of data, some
think it only applies to certain types of data, etc.  And then even "preferred"
doesn't mean the same to everyone!

But at least since 2004 we don't have to discuss what "software" is ;-)

Overall, it sounds like a gray area to me.  Has this been discussed in -legal?

> You need to find yourself a more appropriate way to express your concerns
> about such files

Well, I usually express that I found a bug (or in some -rare!- cases, that I
mistakenly think I found one) by filing it to the BTS.

My concerns/opinions are not in this bug, but I sent them to -kernel; I think
it'd be good if you participate in the discussion in that thread:

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2008/08/msg00112.html

> than by unilaterally declaring them to be release-critical
> bugs.

As usual, my assesment of severities is "best-effort".  If a severity is
wrong, we can surely discuss it!

Do you mind if I reopen with non-RC severity, untill my question above has
been clarified?

Thanks,

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."