Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:10:24PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:37:49PM +0000, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> > > Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored in
> > > your hardware is better than having it loaded from your OS?
> >
> > My position is that the laws governing embedded firmware are much
> > more favorable to the users than the laws governing freestanding
> > firmware.
>
> To gives a random example: firmware-iwlwifi
> (by the way the link in packages.d.o to the copyright file does not work
> https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//non-free/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-nonfree_20210315-3_copyright
> return 404
> )
>
> * No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this software
> is permitted.
>
> This would not be legal for embedded firmware
Reverse engineering is legal in some legislation and certain circumstances.
This conditions could be void in those legislations.
For example, I've read articles about the German GeschGehG, implementing
EU Regulation 2016/943, which indicates that it might not be possible to restrict
the right for reverse engineering contractually, especially if the product is
available to the public.
Often, embedded firmware is protected to be read from its flash memory.
Circumventing technical protecions is often illegal.
> THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED
>
> You cannot disclaim warranty on hardware. You have to provide statutory
> warranty.
You can't disclaim statutory warranty, regardless if its hardware or software.
However, you can write a lot of sentences in your licenses, even some sentences
which are legally ineffective…
Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice, but my oppinion.
--
tobi
Reply to: