|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > June 2004 > Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?
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 |
Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?
|
|
| Joe Wreschnig 2004-06-16, 5:55 pm |
| On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 14:38, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode (neroden@twcny.rr.com) [040615 21:27]:
>
> would it be ok if they hand in their humble suggestions at your
> front desk in written form? or would you rather want them to
> report to you in person?
>
> hint: your tone is not appropriet and you are not the one to
> order them around.
Then who is? This problem has been known about for a long time, and a
lot of developers would like to see some progress on it. No one should
*need* to order Debian developers to follow copyright law in their
Debian work; it should be the default. Plus, I'd rather Nathanael do it
than the US government. (I also found his tone civil, if curt.)
It's not even a request to remove it, just one asking for some
indication on what kind of schedule or plans are going on, and *an offer
for help*.
--
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
| |
| Joe Wreschnig 2004-06-16, 5:56 pm |
| On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 19:45, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 05:51:03PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>
> The correct thing to do was what I did -- contact the USB maintainer, who
> was previously unaware of this problem:
>
> <gregkh> willy: cool, I got back a response with an email from emagic giving the blessing to include the drivers in linux.
> <gregkh> willy: just looks like I need to add the following:
> <gregkh> Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware
> <gregkh> image as part of a Linux or other Open Source operating system kernel
> <gregkh> in text or binary form as required.
> <gregkh> as the keyspan drivers have.
>
> So, problem resolved. No need to remove anything.
At best that solves a third of the problem. What about all the other
copyright holders of the kernel, have they agreed to link with the
non-GPLd code? (Before someone tells me kernel developers don't care, or
"this isn't linking", [0]) And once the copyright issue is dealt with,
there's still the issue of meeting the DFSG.
This is as good first step. But nothing is yet "resolved".
[0] http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/lin...03-18/1472.html
--
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
| |
| Joe Wreschnig 2004-06-16, 5:56 pm |
| On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 00:54, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include <hallo.h>
> * Joe Wreschnig [Tue, Jun 15 2004, 09:01:52PM]:
>
>
> What exactly are you trying to proove with the mentioned link?
People who hold copyrights on the Linux kernel view distribution of the
kernel with proprietary firmware to be a violation of their license.
Period. This is a fact: _Copyright holders of material Debian is
distributing believe we are doing so in violation of the license they
have granted us_. This is a serious problem, both in terms of BTS
severity and most legal codes.
Debian has a policy of trying to honor the copyright holder's
interpretation of a license, both because we want to avoid lawsuits, and
because (I like to think) we like to be nice to the developers whose
software we distribute. In some really blatantly stupid cases like SCO,
we rebut them. But I don't think Adam's case is stupid, and you're
advocating outright ignoring the problem rather than responding to it.
> The same
> guesses about guesses about assumptions about expectations as we have on
> debian-devel with some confused GPL fans (trying to construct a
> DSFG-violation case for free GPLed data files).
I cannot parse this sentence. Please tell me why we should ignore Adam's
statement that he believes we are infringing upon his license.
--
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
| |
| Joe Wreschnig 2004-06-16, 5:56 pm |
| On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 09:41, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:01:52PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>
> It solves the problem at hand -- that Debian has no permission to
> distribute the file. You can now go back to wanking about firmware all
> you like. I shan't bother with that.
Debian now has permission to distribute the firmware. But in the
process, it has lost permission to distribute other parts of the kernel.
I'm not sure how simply I can put this:
- This is not wanking.
- This is not related to the DFSG or SC at all.
- This is an accusation of copyright infringement by a party whose
software Debian distributes, and should be treated seriously.
It also does not solve the problem in the way the release manager said
it needs to be:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-kern...6/msg00064.html
This solution is legally and technically unacceptable. Whether I believe
it violates the SC is not relevant.
--
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
| |
| Joe Wreschnig 2004-06-16, 5:56 pm |
| [Moving to -kernel and -legal instead of -kernel and -devel.]
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 12:56, Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 16/06/2004 14:31 : wrote Joe Wreschnig :
>
>
> No, no, and no.
> Firmware with _any_ distributable license + kernel (GPL) = distributable
> even if non-free.
> Firmware and Kernel are agregating only, not derived works. They don't
> link together; firmware is not a derived work of the kernel nor
> /vice-versa/.
Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
When you compile a kernel, the firmware is included in it. When you
distribute that compiled binary, you're distributing a work derived from
the kernel and the firmware. This is not a claim that the firmware is a
derivative of the Linux kernel, or vice versa. Rather, the compiled
binary is a derivative of both.
For someone to claim that data compiled into a program but not executed
is "mere aggregation" is nonsense. Is a program that prints the source
code to GNU ls (stored as a string constant in the program, not an
external file) a derivative of GNU ls? Of course it is. This is
*exactly* analogous to the situation with firmware.
(I agree that there is another problem, that this does not meet the SC.
But Debian can suspend the SC to speed a release, and several GRs are in
the process of doing that. Debian cannot suspend copyright law, and this
is a much more serious issue.)
--
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
| |
| Oliver Elphick 2004-06-17, 5:53 pm |
| On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 13:31, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
> Nonsense. He made his code available to others under the GPL. Those
> others (Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Red Hat, etc) made a work derived
> from his work and that of others and distributed it. They violated
> the license they had from him when they did so.
Unless someone else put it into the kernel without asking him (was that
the case?), he gave it to them under the GPL with a request to include
it in the kernel as it then was. That creates an implied permission to
do so, since otherwise his request to have it put in the kernel would be
nonsensical.
Oliver Elphick
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|