| 1 |
On 12/30/2009 11:48 PM, Greg KH wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Heh, no, it does not, unless your BIOS, and your keyboard firmware, and |
| 4 |
> your mouse firmware are all under a "free" license. The only thing |
| 5 |
> close to this type of machine is the OLPC, and even then, I don't think |
| 6 |
> all the microcode for the box was ever released. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> So it's a pointless effort. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Actually, you describe the futility of the effort, not the pointlessness |
| 11 |
of the effort. The fact that an effort is difficult or even futile does |
| 12 |
not make it pointless. Some might disagree about it being impossible as |
| 13 |
well (there are open-source BIOS implementations, for example). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I'm sure the people who have such philosophies try to run free software |
| 16 |
anytime that it is possible. They might not be able to run free |
| 17 |
software on their microwave, but if one came out with an open-source |
| 18 |
firmware they'd probably try to buy it. I don't see this as being |
| 19 |
inconsistent, just practical. The fact that they can't buy an |
| 20 |
open-source toaster or mouse doesn't mean that they can't use an |
| 21 |
open-source kernel. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Hint, these firmware blobs do not run on your processor, so they have |
| 25 |
> nothing to do with the license of your "system". |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I'm not really sure where you're coming up with this argument. The |
| 28 |
purpose of a license is to ALLOW you to do something you otherwise |
| 29 |
wouldn't be allowed to do. Licenses don't actually take away rights, |
| 30 |
they grant them. Laws do take away rights. There is a law that says |
| 31 |
that if I write a program and give it to you, you can't copy it and give |
| 32 |
it to somebody else. However, if I give you a license to copy the file |
| 33 |
under some conditions, then you can copy it legally if you follow those |
| 34 |
conditions. Nowhere in copyright law is the word "processor" found or |
| 35 |
implied - the technology used to copy is also irrelevant except to the |
| 36 |
degree that it impacts fair use. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
When you run software you aren't distributing it. The concept of a |
| 39 |
use-license is a bit blurry - some people think that you don't need a |
| 40 |
license to use software, and other people think you do. I don't believe |
| 41 |
that court rulings are as uniform on the topic of use as they are on the |
| 42 |
concept of copying. In any case, the GPL v2 does not in any way attempt |
| 43 |
to restrict or grant the rights to use software - only to distribute it. |
| 44 |
GPL v3 is a bit murkier in this regard, but irrelevant to a discussion |
| 45 |
on the kernel. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> Again, no, the GPLv2 covers the license of all of the code you run in |
| 49 |
> the kernel package. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
The concern isn't about RUNNING the software - it is about DISTRIBUTING |
| 52 |
the software. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
> And again, you do not run those firmware images on your processor, so |
| 55 |
> the point is moot. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Sure you do - you run them on your sound card processor, or your video |
| 58 |
capture card processor, or whatever. However, the concern isn't running |
| 59 |
the software, it is redistributing it. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> And note, _I_ placed those images in the kernel image, after consulting |
| 63 |
> lawyers about this issue, so it's not like I don't know what I am |
| 64 |
> talking about here. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
Did they say that the GPLv2 applied to the entire tarball containing the |
| 67 |
firmware? Or did they simply state that building/running kernels using |
| 68 |
the tarball was legal? |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
Nobody is saying that the presence of the proprietary bits violates the |
| 71 |
GPL (v1, v2, OR v3). You're not doing anything illegal. |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
However, the tarball is not licensed under the GPLv2. I can't modify |
| 74 |
that tarball at will, for example, and redistribute it. If I modify 10 |
| 75 |
bytes in the middle of one of those firmware blobs, reassemble the |
| 76 |
tarball, and post that on my website, I can be sued by the maker of that |
| 77 |
firmware blob. I haven't violated the GPL in doing any of that - the |
| 78 |
problem is that the firmware blob isn't licensed under the GPL. |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
The license to redistribute the gentoo-sources tarball is NOT GPLv2 - it |
| 81 |
is GPLv2 for 98% of it, and a mix of other licenses for the rest. I |
| 82 |
don't own a keyspan usb serial device, but that doesn't mean I can |
| 83 |
modify the usa28.fw file and put it in a kernel tarball on my website, |
| 84 |
as the license for that file SPECIFICALLY states that I'm not allowed to |
| 85 |
do this and it is copyrighted. Doing this doesn't violate the GPL, but |
| 86 |
the GPL doesn't apply to this file. |
| 87 |
|
| 88 |
The point of this thread is that the gentoo-sources package is |
| 89 |
mislabeled as GPLv2 when the entire package is not licensed under GPL |
| 90 |
v2. Nobody is saying that it is illegal to distribute gentoo-sources, |
| 91 |
only that it cannot be entirely distributed solely under GPLv2. |
Archives