| Humberto Massa 2004-03-29, 1:34 pm |
| Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Humberto Massa wrote:
>
>
>
> The copyright holder is perfectly free to put a GPL header on code
> that can't be distributed under the terms of the GPL, and can then
> give that code to somebody else.
Look down below for the net result of this.
>
> But more seriously, if I included a bunch of x86 binary code in a C
> source file with a GPL header, would you automatically assume that
> that was the preferred form of modification? Even if there was 300K
> of it? Companies like Intel do not operate in a way that would
> allow them to produce a piece of code that could only be maintained
> by one person. Suggesting that the firmware was written by one
> person with an intimate knowledge of the hardware and that if he
> was hit by a bus Intel would have to start over is, frankly,
> implausible.
>
Ok, I confess... I was forcing my hand (partially) :-)
Serious, Intel and IBM, I concur with you (ain't gonna happen), /but/
other hw manufacturers, I don't know... and... neither do you.
The net result of tacking a GPL-license-header in a doubious source
file (as in we don't know and prefer to believe is not a source file
or a pf4m of the file) is, for example:
* Massa (me) gets a file (C) IBM, with a big (20k?) blob in {0x0...}
format, and little more, and a GPL-license-header.
* hmmm... this means I am licensed (and entitled, as in now I have the
right) to do the things the GPL licenses me to do. So I can
redistribute it.
* yes (at least in /my/ jurisdiction -- not in the sense I own it, but
in the sense I am /inside/ it)... They put the GPL-header there, they
are saying: "read this, you have this rights where this rights is the
_reasonable_ and _possible_ interpretation of this"
* ok, at this point I don't want to mess with it, just redistribute. I
am in the safe side of the law assuming the GPL header applies to
everything in there *and* assuming the blob in 0x0 format is the pf4m,
because, as far as I know, it's the only form for modification (so it
must be the preferred one)
* if I have doubts, I will ask IBM, I send a mail to person_x@ibm.com
and ask "is this really, really GPL? is this the pf4m?".
* a month and a year passes, nobody answers. what do I know? it's the
pf4m. period. the genius guys at IBM know how to use and change it in
hex. nothing else.
* I can assume differently _if and only if_ person_x@ibm.com sends me
a mail "sorry, here is the EULA for the blob: you cannot modify, see,
peek on it with a ten-foot pole".
* In this last case, it's non-free. Else, it's still free. Sucks, but
it's free.
* I will give another example. So IBM sez: it's GPL, ok, here is the
source code:
mov x3, 42
jmp 34
flags 39
mov x2, x3
wait 3
repeat move inc x1, x3
halt
* ooh, nice. wtf? suppose, even, the asm code below is correlated to
the hex codes. Is it more free?
* If I dont' know what the registers are for, what regions of memory
do what, does it make *any* difference at all? Is it any more of
"Preferred Form 4 Modification"???
* IBM can say: o, yes, for thirty million dollars, cash, we can sell
you the complete specs to the gadget.
What now?
--
br,M
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|