[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:15:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 09:03 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a écrit :
> > Well it doesn't make any difference. If GPL has degenerated to
> > where one can't upload microcode to a device as part of its
> > initialization, without having the "source" that generated that
> > microcode, we are in a lot of hurt. Intel isn't going to give their
> > designs away.
> The GPL doesn't forbid that. The GPL forbids to put this microcode
> directly in the same binary as the GPL code. Of course, nothing forbids
> some GPL'ed code to take a binary elsewhere and to upload it into the
> hardware.

No, i am arguing, that we can consider here the binary as a media
distribution, in the same way as we would clearly separate the compressor from
the compressed data in a auto-uncompressing executable, or the firmware from
the firmware flasher in a all-in-one firmware upgrade binary.

> At least that's my opinion; AIUI, Sven Luther believes it is possible if
> the firmware has a decent (but not necessarily free) license.

Indeed, the sole problem is that the current copyright and licencing
attributions de-facto sets those firmware blobs under the GPL, which of course
makes them undistributable since the GPL clearly claims that we need source
code for it, and if any condition of the GPL fails, the program becomes
undistributable as a whole.


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: 2005-04-08 10:26    [W:0.044 / U:2.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site