Re: Keyspan Firmware fun
> - the file keyspan_pda_fw.h is under the GPL. Is is a compiled
> image of the keyspan_pda.S in the same directory
> (drivers/usb/serial in the kernel tree.) This is a wonderful
> achievement by Brian Warner who wrote his own firmware to
> control this device, before Keyspan ever released their specs.
Good to know. Is it possible for whomever is responsible to explicitly
clarify that in that file?
> - This isn't the only firmware file in the kernel that has a "odd"
> license. Read the file fore200e_firmware_copyright in drivers/atm
> and let me know what you think. There are others in the tree, like
> this last time I checked.
For those who don't have a copy of the kernel tree hanging around,
that file says
These microcode data are placed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License.
We would prefer you not to distribute modified versions of it and
not to ask for assembly or other microcode source.
Copyright (c) 1995-2000 FORE Systems, Inc., as an unpublished work.
This notice does not imply unrestricted or public access to these
materials which are a trade secret of FORE Systems, Inc. or its
subsidiaries or affiliates (together referred to as "FORE"), and
which may not be reproduced, used, sold or transferred to any third
party without FORE's prior written consent. All rights reserved.
U.S. Government Restricted Rights. If you are licensing the
Software on behalf of the U.S. Government ("Government"), the
following provisions apply to you. If the software is supplied to the
Department of Defense ("DoD"), it is classified as "Commercial
Computer Software" under paragraph 252.227-7014 of the DoD
Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulations ("DFARS") (or any
successor regulations) and the Government is acquiring only the
license rights granted herein (the license rights customarily
provided to non-Government users). If the Software is supplied to
any unit or agency of the Government other than the DoD, it is
classified as "Restricted Computer Software" and the Government's
rights in the Software are defined in paragraph 52.227-19 of the
Federal Acquisition Regulations ("FAR") (or any successor
regulations) or, in the cases of NASA, in paragraph 18.52.227-86 of
the NASA Supplement to the FAR (or any successor regulations).
FORE Systems is a registered trademark, and ForeRunner,
ForeRunnerLE, and ForeThought are trademarks of FORE Systems, Inc.
All other brands or product names are trademarks or registered
trademarks of their respective holders.
This is a little funny, in that it says that it is covered under the
GPL, but then has other stuff. It doesn't seem to actually conflict
with the GPL. For example, it says
may not be reproduced, used, sold or transferred to any third party
without FORE's prior written consent. All rights reserved.
but we already got the consent because it is under the GPL. However,
I don't have a copy of paragraph 18.52.227-86 of the NASA Supplement
to the FAR (and all successor regulations), so I don't know what that
says.
> - Since this Keyspan license seems to be objectionable, what kind of
> license can/should a company put on its binary firmware image that
> has to be included in the Linux kernel. They can't/will not put GPL
> on the binary image, as we/Linus has been saying for quite some time
> that this is not necessary (the whole "mere aggregation" point.)
> There are lots of firmware images in your computer that don't have a
> OpenSource license on them, just that now some of these devices
> require the host to send the image to them before they can work
> properly.
The biggest problem with the license is that there is no permission to
do anything with it, such as copy, modify, or redistribute. Debian is
not even allowed to put it on it's web site. Apart from that,
regardless of what Linus allows in his own kernel tree, debian
requires that anything that gets compiled in with GPL code be GPL
compatible(1). keyspan.c is under the GPL, so everything that it
includes must also be compatible with the GPL, including the firmware
images.
If there was a license that just allowed copying and redistributing,
then the file might go in non-free. However, it would not be legal to
distribute modules compiled from that. Debian might not package it,
and so people would have to go to Keyspan's website (or where ever) to
get the patch.
Also, if you could tell us which other firmware's have license's that
are funny, we'll take a look at them. The original Keyspan license is
definitely a non-starter, though.
Regards,
Walter Landry
landry@physics.utah.edu
(1) This is probably a simplification, but close enough for current
purposes.
Reply to: