Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 10:56:27AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:45:54 +0200, Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> said:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> ,---- | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free
> >> software | community (Social Contract #4); | 2. We acknowledge that
> >> there is a lot of progress in the kernel | firmware issue; however,
> >> it is not yet finally sorted out; | 3. We assure the community that
> >> there will be no regressions in | the progress made for freedom in
> >> the kernel distributed by | Debian relative to the Sarge release in
> >> Etch | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over
> >> sorting every | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of
> >> sourceless | firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver
> >> firmware in udebs as | long as it is necessary for installation
> >> (like all udebs), and | firmware included in the kernel itself as
> >> part of Debian Etch, | as long as we are legally allowed to do so,
> >> and the firmware is | distributed upstream under a license that
> >> complies with the DFSG. `----
>
> > Manoj, i want a clarification of what this actually means for :
>
> > 1) firmware like the tg3 one, which is licenced under a 'permision
> > to distribute under an hexa dump or equivalent format' but no
> > further modification rights. This is clearly DFSG non-free, so
> > tg3 has to go.
>
> I am not familiar with the license here, but if what you state
> is correct, then yes, anything under a non-ZDFSG compliant license
> has to go. If I understand correctly, there is some confusion over
> the actual license the firmware ships under, some one said it was the
> GPL?
Well, it was sourceless GPL, and thus undistributable. We approached broadcom
over it last fall, and they after extensive discussion with their legal team
changed the licencing to what we suggested, namely :
* 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* Derived from proprietary unpublished source code,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.
Now, since this is not DFSG free, Steve has some ideas of using the older GPL
version, and making a bet that the firmware didn't change since then, or use
the older firmware.
> > 2) firmware under the GPL, but with missing source. The GPL is
> > free, but the absence of source code for the firmware blobs
> > makes it a violation of the GPL, and thus undistributable.
>
> I was very careful to state that shipped upstream under a
I don't understand this. You added a couple of lines to Frederik's proposal,
and those have manifestedly be miscompreheneded, because people seconded it
while missing the implication for tg3.
> compliant license -- which this case seems to meet. Arguable (and
> highly improbably), the firmware hex dump could be the preferred form
The mention of : "Derived from proprietary unpublished source code", in the
later licence, clearly and without doubt says that this is not the prefered
source for modification.
> of modification. I am suggesting we take licenses at face value for
> etch; and afterwards determine if _we_ can ship the firmware and meet
> the spirit of the DFSG and the GPL or not (since only upstream can
> actually sue us, legal paper tigers are not an factor).
While we where trying to aim to take the intentions of the vendors, who
included the firmware into mainline at face value, and waive the DFSG for the
sourceless or otherwise non-free firmwares, so it is clear that your proposal
fully contradicts this.
Now, the RMs seem to have some notion, from the hurried discussion we had
yesterday, that they seem to interpret your post as allowing to distribute
sourceless GPLed firmware, because the GPL licence is DFSG free.
> > 3) firmware under a BSDish licence, but without source. The BSD is
> > a free licence, but i question the freeness of binaries
> > distributed under the BSD without source code.
>
> If the firmware is not the source code itself, then this might
> fall foul of the DFSG#2 (very probably the case).
Also my interpretation.
I also strongly dislike the notion that it is acceptable to have a sourceless
firmware (and yes, if i say sourceless, it means the hexdump itself is *NOT*
the prefered source), as long as the actual licence is one that is DFSG free,
even though the sourceless nature of it violates the GPL or the DFSG.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
>
> My resolution determines that while we may have licenses which
> are broken, and bits of the kernel that violate the "we want sources
> for all programs", we ship etch in violation of these things, and
> take care of cleaning up later, Not perfect, but lets us release a
> slightly imperfet kernel, allowing us to support users with hardware
> that needs non-free, and does not weaken the SC/DFSG.
>
> manoj
> --
> It is when I struggle to be brief that I become obscure. Quintus
> Horatius Flaccus (Horace)
> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail.
> Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte.
>
>
>
Reply to: