|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > March 2004 > Bug#239952: kernel-source-2.6.4: qla2xxx contains non-free firmware
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Bug#239952: kernel-source-2.6.4: qla2xxx contains non-free firmware
|
|
| Eduard Bloch 2004-03-26, 11:21 am |
| Moin Adrian!
Adrian Bunk schrieb am Donnerstag, den 25. März 2004:
> First of all:
> I'm not the big "remove this software because it doesn't fit into an
> ideal free software picture" evangelist.
>
> I sent this bug since (as you mention) there were other drivers disabled
> for the same reason, and even the GFDL (which is at most very slighly
NO. NOT the same reason, please understand the issue before filing bugs.
There is a difference between
a) firmware chunks under the GPL
b) under distribution-hostile licenses
The first ones are okay, the situation is not different than PNG images
distributed with GPL packages.
The second ones are problematic and that is why they have been removed.
Regards,
Eduard.
--
Wie man sein Kind nicht nennen sollte:
R. Schossen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Matthew Garrett 2004-03-26, 2:38 pm |
| Evan Prodromou wrote:
>
> AB> I still don't get the point why it is OK to say "this file is
> AB> covered by the GPL" when all it contains is compiled binary
> AB> code.
>
>Because it might not be compiled. It might be the actual original
>source.
In the case in question, we're talking about over 300K of hex per
device. Do you really believe that someone wrote that by hand?
This argument is silly. The infrastructure to solve the problem (ie,
move the code out of the kernel and do it all in userspace) already
exists. Why don't we just do it?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.devel@srcf.ucam.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Nathanael Nerode 2004-03-26, 3:35 pm |
| Eduard Bloch wrote:
> You miss the point again (deliberate?). I say that IFF NVidia ships their
> drivers with DSFG-compatible source for all precompiled object files
> that are parts of the code running in the HOST system kernel, YES. But
> that is not what we are talking about; this thread is about firmware
> blobs running inside of the target hardware, never touched during the
> software development. They are not MODIFIED to change the code running
> within the GPL space (kernel) so there is no need to distribute any
> pre-form of the binary blob.
If you want to modify it -- for instance, to fix bugs in it -- you want the
"preferred form for modification". If there exists, anywhere, another form
used to generate the binary blob, that's almost certainly preferred over
the binary blob!
If the binary blob was really the source file, then it's fine. For these
so-called "GPLed" binaries, we should ask the copyright holders if they
were *really* written as binary blobs. If they say "yes", let's believe
them. If they say "no", then the binaries are undistributable.
--
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Don Armstrong 2004-03-26, 6:36 pm |
| On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> There is a difference between
>
> a) firmware chunks under the GPL
>
> The first ones are okay, the situation is not different than PNG
> images distributed with GPL packages.
They are actually both problematic, especially when someone turns
around and redistributes a work containing such pieces and a reciever
demands source.
In the case of firmware chunks, if what you have isn't the prefered
form for modification, then you can't (in general) turn around and
redistribute the work under the GPL.
In the case of PNG files, if what you have isn't the prefered form for
modification, then you can't redistribute that either.[1]
In both of these cases it's important that upstream make available the
prefered form for modification, whatever that is.
For example, I see no problem with PNG files being distributed in the
source tarball alongside the SVG or PS or whatever files were used to
generate the artwork in the first place. If an upstream is not doing
that, the upstream has problems, and is causing them for anyone who is
downstream and trying to redistribute a work.[2]
Don Armstrong
1: I can see an argument being made that a PNG file is much closer to
the prefered form for modification than machine code and/or might
actually be the prefered form for modification. That's fine, but it
doesn't mean that we shouldn't be strongly requesting that upstreams
distribute the prefered form for modification.
2: Please don't go out and file RC bugs for this, though. If you
identify a case like this, work with upstream to make the source
available.
--
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
-- Robert Heinlein
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
| |
| Herbert Xu 2004-03-26, 7:35 pm |
| Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> In the case in question, we're talking about over 300K of hex per
> device. Do you really believe that someone wrote that by hand?
>
> This argument is silly. The infrastructure to solve the problem (ie,
> move the code out of the kernel and do it all in userspace) already
> exists. Why don't we just do it?
Be my guest. Why is it that people on your side of the argument never
actually back up your words with action?
It has been three years since the keyspan drivers were removed from
Debian. And has anyone written firmware loading code for it? No.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Herbert Xu 2004-03-26, 7:35 pm |
| John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode writes:
>
> Unless they grant explicit permission. Then they would be distributable
> but still non-DFSG.
Huh? Please show me where the DFSG prohibits people from writing binary
blobs. Jeez, we better throw all those hex editors away. Hmm, echo(1)
has gotta go as well.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Herbert Xu 2004-03-26, 7:36 pm |
| Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> wrote:
>
> For example, I see no problem with PNG files being distributed in the
> source tarball alongside the SVG or PS or whatever files were used to
> generate the artwork in the first place. If an upstream is not doing
> that, the upstream has problems, and is causing them for anyone who is
> downstream and trying to redistribute a work.[2]
> 2: Please don't go out and file RC bugs for this, though. If you
> identify a case like this, work with upstream to make the source
> available.
Right, so for binary firmware we can file RC bugs without checking
with the copyright holders, but for PNGs the rules are different.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Don Armstrong 2004-03-26, 7:36 pm |
| On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Right, so for binary firmware we can file RC bugs without checking
> with the copyright holders, but for PNGs the rules are different.
I would argue that they're not, but I'm not ready to embark upon that
journey, which is why I suggest that RC bugs not be filed. If someone
is ready to deal with the fallout, go ahead and file RC bugs.
Regardless, both issues are a case where upstream needs to be helped
to understand what the licenses that they are assigning their code
under actually do, and what it means for the redistributability of
code under those licences.
Don Armstrong
--
I now know how retro SCOs OSes are. Riotous, riotous stuff. How they
had the ya-yas to declare Linux an infant OS in need of their IP is
beyond me. Upcoming features? PAM. files larger than 2 gigs. NFS over
TCP. The 80's called, they want their features back.
-- Compactable Dave http://www3.sympatico.ca/dcarpeneto/sco.html
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
| |
| Marco d'Itri 2004-03-27, 5:33 am |
| On Mar 27, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> It has been three years since the keyspan drivers were removed from
> Debian. And has anyone written firmware loading code for it? No.
Why are you surprised? No other distribution is bothered by this.
--
ciao, |
Marco | [5385 trz07DZWx4jFI]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Herbert Xu 2004-03-28, 6:34 am |
| Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> I would argue that they're not, but I'm not ready to embark upon that
> journey, which is why I suggest that RC bugs not be filed. If someone
> is ready to deal with the fallout, go ahead and file RC bugs.
I fail to see how the fallout can be any worse for the PNGs. If anything,
I'd say that fewer people need binary PNGs than they do firmware.
I always have a problem when people apply standards inconsistently,
whether it be the FHS or the DFSG.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Nathanael Nerode 2004-03-29, 3:34 am |
| Herbert Xu wrote:
> Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> wrote:
>
> I fail to see how the fallout can be any worse for the PNGs. If anything,
> I'd say that fewer people need binary PNGs than they do firmware.
You live in a weird world. :-) Perhaps all your systems are text-only and
you feel that images are for wimps? Or are just you being deliberately
perverse by obscuring the difference between actual burnt-in-hardware
firmware and so-called "firmware" which is actually software loaded from a
host system? I'd guess that more people need *Debian-distributed* PNG
files than need *Debian-distributed* firmware.
--
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Herbert Xu 2004-03-29, 5:37 am |
| Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> Herbert Xu wrote:
>
>
> You live in a weird world. :-) Perhaps all your systems are text-only and
> you feel that images are for wimps? Or are just you being deliberately
> perverse by obscuring the difference between actual burnt-in-hardware
> firmware and so-called "firmware" which is actually software loaded from a
> host system? I'd guess that more people need *Debian-distributed* PNG
> files than need *Debian-distributed* firmware.
Really? Show me one machine that fails to boot due to a missing PNG and
I'll show you one that doesn't boot because we've had to remove a driver
with binary firmware embedded.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Nathanael Nerode 2004-03-29, 5:37 am |
| Herbert Xu wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Really? Show me one machine that fails to boot due to a missing PNG and
> I'll show you one that doesn't boot because we've had to remove a driver
> with binary firmware embedded.
Did I say "more machines"? No, I said "more people". Many people see no
value in having a machine which boots but can't show any graphics. As a
kernel hacker, you are not in that group of people, so I understand that it
probably seems like a very alien and weird viewpoint.
--
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Nathanael Nerode 2004-03-29, 5:37 am |
| Nathanael Nerode wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Herbert Xu wrote:
Actually, to ask a factual question, how many of these binary firmware
things really are "doesn't boot" cases? That couldn't include firmware for
anything except the CPU, internal buses, and disks. You might stretch it
to include the video card (in its most minimal mode -- and most support VGA
out of the box these days), the monitor, the keyboard, and the buses those
are connected to.
In contrast, most of the examples I've seen are hardware quite definitely
not needed to boot (although perhaps very frustrating to be without).
--
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Riku Voipio 2004-03-29, 6:36 am |
| On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 03:17:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> you feel that images are for wimps? Or are just you being deliberately
> perverse by obscuring the difference between actual burnt-in-hardware
> firmware and so-called "firmware" which is actually software loaded from a
> host system? I'd guess that more people need *Debian-distributed* PNG
> files than need *Debian-distributed* firmware.
There is no need to obscure diffrence between "burnt-in" and "host-loaded"
firmware, hardware manufacturers have already done it for us.
Usually the difference is that the latter ones lack persistent memory.
Take for example some usb adsl "modems". They are excactly the
hardware as the ethernet ADSL routers except for:
1) no ethernet port
2) no flash memory to store the firmware
So, in order to use the usb adsl modem, the driver has to upload
the firmware to the modems RAM and boot it.
Now i would never buy such crap, but lots of people do, because they
are marginally cheaper than the fully equipped hardware. Considering
that sarge will take 13(?) cd's, for most users the only real option to
install is a netinst CD, which indeed will not work without the adsl
modem firmware.
--
Riku Voipio | riku.voipio@iki.fi |
kirkkonummentie 33 | +358 40 8476974 --+--
02140 Espoo | |
dark> A bad analogy is like leaky screwdriver |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Ryan Underwood 2004-03-29, 8:41 am |
|
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 04:30:15PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>
> As said before, the definition of "source" in the GPL is not the
> kill-them-all definition that you try to see there.
This whole issue would be less of a problem if people would not release
things blindly under the GPL, while not ensuring that the GPL's
conditions are satisfiable. This is definitely a problem for upstream
to sort out if they want their software distributed with confidence.
What is the point of using the GPL on something that nobody is going to
bother modifying anyway? Not only because it is not distributed in a
form suitable for modification (nor would we probably have the tools to
build it even if it were), but also because very little is typically
known about the DSP or custom processors that these devices use. If it
is not intended for end-user modification (but the vendor does not
intend to prevent the user from doing so if he really wants to), they
should use a different license besides the GPL.
Essentially, they are saying "you may distribute this file under the GPL
if and only if you satisfy these conditions, that we have not given you
the means to satisfy". The idea that they have given permission
implicitly by releasing the code at all is a falsehood; they have given
us permission under unsatisfiable terms. The intent may be noble, but
without a written statement that they will not consider the GPL to be a
contradiction in the case of their firmware, what is to be done?
Management changes, ownership changes, shareholder attitudes change.
The later owners may not be so nice, not only sueing us for wrongly
distributing the code, but refusing our requests to fix the license.
Getting the license fixed is something that we may only be able to do at
the current moment, or never.
The rebuildable firmware for aic7xxx included with the kernel is a
shining example of what we would prefer vendors to do, and something
that is furthermore distributable under GPL with no questions.
As for the claim that there is a lot of talking and not a lot of doing
from this side, there is a reason for that. What kind of leverage does
some random OSS Joe have with the companies involved? The only people
who are going to get anything done are the people who are already in
contact with these vendors and known to be representing their interests
in the OSS world by writing drivers and documentation for their
hardware. They are the ones that need to get these things fixed,
because they are the ones with the best means to do so.
--
Ryan Underwood, <nemesis@icequake.net>
| |
| Herbert Xu 2004-03-29, 7:34 pm |
| Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, to ask a factual question, how many of these binary firmware
> things really are "doesn't boot" cases? That couldn't include firmware for
Read the subject and my original post.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|