[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

firmware : which license "less worse" available

I'm working on a GPL driver for ADSL USB modem driver, plagued (as
appears "usual") with a firmware issue for Sagem Fast 800 Eagle-usb ADSL
USB modems (and others). That similar to speedtouch or (worst) eci /
connexant cases. Our team :

The difficulty for the end-user with drivers related to internet access
is that, as long as it does not work from the start : 
- it's a pain to obtain support (for the user) and access information
(no internet access)
- it's a pain to get provided with relevant information : a simple
copy/paste of actual error for support forum, as the user comes back to
windoze and forgets to copy exact errors that are very useful for google
search (no internet access)
- it's the first contact with GNU/Linux for many of those users, as
internet access is compulsory to go further most of the time (that's
where you find forums, mail, irc, ... you name it...). Not possible with
no easy internet access.
Hence I believe it requires our GNU/Linux community having those drivers
working  flawlessly from the start, just after CD installation (with not
yet internet access, when this firmware is required).

Unfortunately our firmware's provider - Analog Devices, inc to name it
(ADI) - provided us with a GPL driver (thanks to them, so that we
enhanced it at http://eagle-usb.org) but without sourcecode for
firmware.h and DSPcode which are sent to the modem (and used exclusively
by the modem). It got even worse as they intend to distribute this
firmware "freely" (which means for them "as-is, in binary form by/for
anyone" in their mind - from my understanding - and far from GPL as when
we ask for sourcecode they just answer "no").

Of course, debian-legal declared this situation at best contrib for
driver (hence not on CD from my understanding), of course non-free for
firmware. See (*very* long threads) :
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/10/msg00325.html (eagle-usb at
first, then... well...)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/10/msg00299.html (non-free
firmware from the start, make you own opinion, takes 1 hour at least to
Do not have any doubt : I nearly agree with those threads, I agree with
GPL, I need a pragmatic position though => what do I do, what should I
ask, what should be obtained ? (that's my central question to this mail)

I would need :
- first : arguments to justify / convince ADI to go GPL, as I tried to
do it with
but currently got a "no" answer by Analog with
(I still need some explanation on their part though... I may have
overlooked some problems or not provided them with convincing

- second : *best* licence out of worst case => should it be "2-clause
BSD" as suggested ? What does it mean to make it validated by Analog's
legal department ? (headers to put in the files, requirements). How
could this "nearly-freely" be distributed (without the burden of asking
permission...). Is public domain release available in Canada ? (this is
not the case in France, for example). Binary distribution is a
work-around that does not satisfy me though, as the end-user takes no
benefit from it...

- I'm currently quite sad : as I understood it, Analog being the only
copyright holder can choose double licensing : GPL for GNU/Linux (and
any other OS like *BSD or GNU/Hurd) and "anything they want for any
other distribution". I would have been very happy to obtain
dual-licensing, one of them being GPL (which *only* requires giving the
sourcecode). Perhaps I've overlooked some possibilities or convincing
arguments ?

Any help / advice is welcome, I still hope to convince our current
contract's managers.
Ben'. aka baud123

Reply to: