From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261851AbTEHQZq (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2003 12:25:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261858AbTEHQZp (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2003 12:25:45 -0400 Received: from h-64-105-35-101.SNVACAID.covad.net ([64.105.35.101]:3482 "EHLO adam.yggdrasil.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261851AbTEHQZn (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2003 12:25:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 09:35:46 -0700 From: "Adam J. Richter" Message-Id: <200305081635.h48GZk007160@adam.yggdrasil.com> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Binary firmware in the kernel - licensing issues. Cc: simon@thekelleys.org.uk Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Simon Kelley wrote: >Briefly, the arguments that binary firmware which is copied into the >hardware by the kernel is OK are these. [...] >5) There are current examples in the kernel of drivers with source-free > binary firmware blobs going back at least to version 1.3. This means > that someone might have considered this before and OKed it. I don't know who supposedly "OKed" what in the above sentence. > It also > means that anyone who added code to the kernel since 1.3 had > evidence that for Linux the interpration of this GPL grey area > was to allow binary firmware. It is difficult to a contributor to > turn around now and claim copyright infrigement by distributing their > work with binary firmware when the kernel already had binary firmware > in it when their contribution was first made. I addressed this previously. The fact that nobody has litigated this yet, does not mean that everyone accepts in. >6) AFAIK nobody has claimed that the existing firmware blobs in Linux > violate their copyright on GPL-licensed kernel contributions and > fairly certainly nobody has pressed this in law. (Since if they > had it would be well-known.) Just so you can never truthfully make this statment again, for the record, I believe that the existing "firmware blobs" in Linux that do not include source infringe Yggdrasil copyrights on GPL-licensed kernel contributions (just as I believe they infringe many other authors' GPL-licensed contributions). >The arguments against allowing binary firmware are these. Let's be clear: embedding binary firmware into a GPL'ed work is fine if the firmware contains no additional restriction beyond the GPL and complete source code for the firmware is included. I think you understand this much already, but I just want to be clear about it. >1) The GPL is unclear on this point. All three distribution options in section 3 of the version 2 of the GNU General Public License require distribution or arrangments for distribution "machine-readable source code", and defines "source code" as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." That seems pretty clear to me. By the way, I believe the FSF has already said that the GPL prohibits these binary blobs without source code, and I am confident that they would testify or submit a friend of the court brief to that effect if necessary (and I believe it would be usable by the court for interpreting a contract under "the four corners rule"). >2) The intention of the GPL is to allow redistribution only > with source. >3) Some contributors to the kernel might want their work distributed > only with all source, including firmware source. These people > would contend that their copyright had been violated and would > feel aggrieved or sue for lots of money. A problem with legal grey areas is that they create an environment where vendors are made to choose between breaking the law and perhaps being caught years later or going out of business (because all the customers preferred less and less legal vendors). So vendors may need to litigate GPL infractions more often and earlier to avoid the "competition for the most illegal" dilemma, even nobody in no individually actually feels that "aggrieved" in an emotional sense. Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road adam@yggdrasil.com \ / Miplitas, California 95035 +1 408 309-6081 | g g d r a s i l United States of America "Free Software For The Rest Of Us."