[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Subjectnon-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

    <quick sumary>
    Current linux kernel source hold undistributable non-free firmware blobs, and
    to consider them as mere agregation, a clear licence statement from the
    copyright holders of said non-free firmware blobls is needed, read below for
    </quick sumary>

    Please keep everyone in the CC, as not everyone reads debian-legal or LKML.

    Some kernel modules present in the kernel sources as distributed from present some non-free binary only firmware that gets uploaded
    in the target chip by the controler. tg3, qla2xxx, acenix and a couple of
    others are example of such modules with non-free firmware blobs.

    This is no major problem per see, since, as discussed in this thread :

    It is obvious in this context that the non-free firmware constitute a mere
    aggregation and not an act of linking with the rest of the kernel. This is at
    least the consensus that debian has reached with input from the debian-legal
    lists, and what we will stand by this.

    Naturally even if debian has come to the conclusion that these non-free
    firmware blobs are not a violation of the rest of the kernel GPL licence, it
    still doesn't make these non-free firmware blobs free software, and thus they
    and the drivers which contain it will be removed from debian/main, and put
    into the non-free section of our archive.

    Now, these non-free firmware are distributed in the same file as the rest of
    the module which uses it. This is still ok since it constitute agregation on
    a same distribution media, where the distribution media is the file in this

    But these files, as seen in the tg3.c case, have no special mention of the
    firmware in the file header, nor are they distinguished in any way from the
    rest of the content of that file, which places them de facto under the GPL,

    Accordying to the GPL, we thus needs the source files for this non-free
    firmware, which is not available, and thus makes the files undistributable.
    Even if we would consider these firmware as separate and not covered by the
    de-facto GPLing of the files in question, we still would have no licence
    allowing us to distribute those non-free firmware blobs, and thus we have
    again no right to distribute them as part of the kernel.

    The clean solution is to have a small notice in the header of those files or
    in the toplevel COPYING file, excluding those firmware blobs from the general
    GPLing of the files, and have a small comment inside the files to identify the
    firmware blobs as such and again excluding them from the GPL, and possibly a
    toplevel listing of all the files wich have such problems.

    This is an easy fix, and i believe even those who held the above analysis as
    non-sense or whatever will agree that this is something that should be done.
    The real problem being that nobody except the copyright holder of those
    firmware blobs is legally allowed to make said modification, and thus i bring
    this issue to everyone's attention, for comment and feedback, before trying to
    reach the copyright holders of those individual firmware blobs asking them to
    clarify the situation. I believe many of those read this list anyway, so would
    be able to fix the issue or comment on it without further proding needed.

    In hopes of quick resolution of these murky legalese issues nobody is really
    fond of,


    Sven Luther

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-04-06 13:31    [W:0.023 / U:3.584 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site