Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:57:40 -0300 | From | Humberto Massa <> | Subject | Re: Binary-only firmware covered by the GPL? |
| |
Oh, man, it seems that I *must* repeat myself one more time, at least to see if I'm not in everyone's killfile :-)
@ 30/03/2004 11:19 : wrote Pavel Machek :
> Hi! Hi! > > >>> #include <hallo.h> * David Schwartz [Thu, Mar 25 2004, >>> 04:41:23PM]: >>>>> IMHO code that can be compiled would probably be the >>>>> preferred form of the work. >>>> You are seriously arguing that the obfuscated binary of the >>>> firmware is the preferred form of the firmware for the >>>> purpose of making modifications to it?! I don't know if that's what /he/ is arguing, but *I* am arguing that in the cases I've seen here and in debian-legal, we have the following circumstances (the qla2xxx/ql2100_fw.c canonical example): * the file in question (and its brothers and cousins) have the following structure IIRC: + GPL license comment-header + some includes? + the firmware in c-blob format or unsigned char fw[] = .... + nothing else. * as the file is clearly marked by the copyright holder as being _distributed under the terms of the GPL_ and no other format is given to modify the fw[], at least *legally* is MHO that any recipient/redistributor of the file _can_ and _must_ consider the file in *that* format as the preferred form for modification (pf4m) *and*, considering it the source code, follow the directions of the GPL in respect to modification and redistribution. * the /status quo/ obtained by observation of the previous item prevails _until somebody proves_ that the fw[] = {} is *not* the source code; this, usually, can be proven only by confession, i.e., the original copyright holder *comes out and says:* "hmmm, this is not the source code". Notice that the copyright holder maintaining silence is _not_ confession. * in this case (copyright holder confesses it's not the source code) applied to the examples in casu, i.e., firmware, the kernel people cannot distribute the binary blob *inside the kernel tree*, but can do it separately _if the copyright holder grants a license_ to. * even so, Debian could not distribute it.
>>> Yes, the driver authors PREFERS to make the changes on the C >>> source code, he never has to modify the firmware. Exactly what >>> the GPL requests, where is your problem? >> >> But the firmware didn't appear out of thin air - someone wrote it >> somehow. If that's using a hex editor or inside the C code >> doesn't matter, but most likely they used some other language >> like either C or assembly (no, not all firmware is written using >> assembly), and there are cases where some are in fact written >> using a hex editor but I can't remember any that has been for the >> last 30 or so years but I'm sure there has been cases where there >> hasn't been a working assembler.
But there are cases, even if you don't know of them. And this is the case that has to be taken in account when we start *presuming* things, at least legally, IMHO. > If my code contains picture of human, do I have to provide his DNA, > too? Pavel > > (runs away)
-- best regards,M - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |