FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-16-2008, 06:57 AM
jeff
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Hans de Goede wrote:
Really, arguing that Fedora's stance is inconsistent, while in reality
yours is doesn't gain you much respect. Either:


1) all firmware is software and must be free in which case support for
evil hardware which comes with the firmware embedded must be removed
from linux-libre!


No, because the goal of linux-libre is to have a kernel which doesn't
distribute non-free software.


2) all firmware is considered part of the hardware, independend of the
distribution mechanism of that firmware (the Fedora pov).





---> No, the difference is Fedora is *DISTRIBUTING* the non-free bits. <---




In fact, I don't even care that much that they are distributing the non-free
bits (e.g. like RedHat), it just extra annoying when they *CLAIM* they are
distributing free/open source software when they are not and they *KNOW* they
are not.


If they were distributing non-free hardware we would all complain to them, like
many on this list do about nvidia and such.



-Jeff

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 07:07 AM
jeff
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Hans de Goede wrote:
It depends on your definition of software, according to Fedora's
definitions firmware is not software it is content. I know this is a
word game, but think about it, what is the definition of software?


From the Oxford English Dictionary:

software
1. Computers. a. The programs and procedures required to enable a
computer to perform a specific task, as opposed to the physical components of
the system (see also quot. 1961). b. esp. The body of system programs,
including compilers and library routines, required for the operation of a
particular computer and often provided by the manufacturer, as opposed to
program material provided by a user for a specific task.



I didn't realize fedora was claiming that firmware isn't software. Now that is
bullshit. You call it a word game, I'll call it what it is. *Content??!* It's
obviously software. I mean, it can be copied, it can be rewritten (well, by the
people in the castle with the code), it can be compiled, etc... Clearly
software. I guess you need a PhD to delude yourself otherwise.


Usually techs are so precise, I can't believe the doublethinking here.


Oh, and you should let Broadcom know that they aren't distributing software then:

* Derived from proprietary unpublished source code,


-Jeff

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 07:13 AM
jeff
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Les Mikesell wrote:

jeff wrote:

Les Mikesell wrote:

jeff wrote:
That would be a reasonable change. How is it done in drivers where
the firmware has always been known to be non-GPL but
redistributable? tg3 might be a special case due to its copyright
change.


The firmware hasn't always been known to be non-GPL. It was
distributed for years under the GPL, so it *is* GPL, but they are
violating the GPL by not shipping the source code.


Have you even looked at tg3.c or it's history?



Just a quick google to find the discussion here:
http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing with its note that the
corrected license was committed here:
http://kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=49cabf49abd7676d026a61baabf 5aae9337a82be;hp=9beb1d587f690d5b2f9087f8f10c0ff9f 6b66886


They changed the kernel source then, but that doesn't mean they aren't under
obligations of the GPL since they distributed it for *years* under the GPL.


-Jeff

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 07:31 AM
David Woodhouse
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 19:26 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 17:13 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >> Do do have an exact definition of what is not permitted?
> >
> > I pasted a precise definition of 'collective work' already, didn't I?
>
> That is unrelated to the question.

No, it is the answer to your question. You asked what is not permitted.

What's not permitted is distribution of a collective work including the
GPL'd Program, where the other independent and separate parts of that
work are not also available under the terms of the GPL.

> > It is a work in which a number of separate and independent works are
> > assembled into one work.
> >
> > The very definition of 'collective work' is that it is an aggregation of
> > other independent and separate works.
>
> And aggregations are explicitly permitted which makes that discussion
> irrelevant.

Oh dear, you're back to that again. I thought we'd dealt with that, but
we seem to be going round in circles. I'll try again, one last time:

All collective work is aggregation.

The GPL explicitly states that it covers collective work.

The GPL explicitly talks about extending the permissions of the GPL to
works which are independent and separate works in themselves, when those
works are included in a collective work.

Thus, it is not credible to believe that the 'mere aggregation on a
volume of a storage or distribution medium' exception is intended to
cover _all_ aggregation. That would mean that the GPL is just setting up
all these conditions, only to immediately turn round and say "oh,
actually I didn't really mean it" in the next paragraph.

If you're willing to make that claim in public then I don't really know
why I'm bothering to talk to you. Do you have no shame?

> > In order to create a collective work, you need the permission of the
> > copyright-holders of each of the constituent parts. If any _one_ of them
> > denies you that permission, then you may not distribute that collective
> > work.
>
> And this part applies equally to every line of code and data. Having
> source or not doesn't change the requirement for permission to
> distribute - or give anyone more or less reason to question whether that
> permission has been given.
>
> > As you know, the GPL makes an exception for 'mere aggregation on a
> > volume of a storage or distribution medium'. There is some scope for
> > debate on precisely what is covered by that exception, but not a huge
> > amount.
>
> So the relevant discussion should be about whether there is a person
> that can identify the separate parts.

No, that's another complete non-sequitur from you. Where on earth did
_that_ idea come from?

If you can identify the separate short stories in an anthology, do you
think that somehow means that it isn't a collective work?

Actually, don't bother to answer that. Because I'm sure you'll just come
back with another complete non-sequitur rather than a real answer.

Let's just give up, eh?

--
dwmw2

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 08:08 AM
Hans de Goede
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

jeff wrote:

Hans de Goede wrote:
Really, arguing that Fedora's stance is inconsistent, while in reality
yours is doesn't gain you much respect. Either:


1) all firmware is software and must be free in which case support for
evil hardware which comes with the firmware embedded must be removed
from linux-libre!


No, because the goal of linux-libre is to have a kernel which doesn't
distribute non-free software.




Oh, but promoting the usage and buying of devices which contain non-free
firmware by supporting those is ok, because it isn't non-free firmware that is
evil. It is the distributing of non-free firmware that is evil. Yes a very
consistent and logical pov for which I applaud you!


Basicly the message you are sending is: people please by devices with firmware
in rom, preferably otp rom, because then certainly there is no evil. Not being
able to ever change the firmware is good, because as long as firmware never
gets distributed separately from the hardware, we can pretend its not there and
live our ignorance is bliss lifes thinking that we are in the all software in
my house is free utopia. Because if I cannot see it it isn't there.


Really that I didn't think of this before, it is so brilliant! I guess I should
do away with all my PC's and instead switch to an internet appliance device,
because then I no longer have to worry about whether I have any non-free
software at all. Certainly if I don't need to install the software myself it
isn't there at all then.


2) all firmware is considered part of the hardware, independend of the
distribution mechanism of that firmware (the Fedora pov).





---> No, the difference is Fedora is *DISTRIBUTING* the non-free bits.
<---


So the goal of linux-libre is to not distribute non-free software. Do you ever
buy a PC / laptop? If so you're involved in a transaction which almost
certainly involves the distribution of non-free firmware. Worse, not only are
you involved in such a transaction, you are _paying_ for the system of which
the non-free firmware is an integral part and thus you are paying for non-free
firmware, thereby promoting the production of non-free firmware.


Do you ever sell any of you PC hardware (motherboard, latop, printer) second
hand and / or give it away to friends / family, then you are *DISTRIBUTING*
non-free firmware. Really, they should put you in prison for that!


Please stop being so hypocritical.

Putting it simply there are 2 possible stances on non-free firmware:

1) Its evil and as such should be erradicated, therefor I will not buy or use
any devices with it. Nor will I add support for any devices containing
non-free firmware to my Free operating system

2) Its evil, but allas it is here, so although we are not in favor it we
condone it.

The its evil, but ok as long as not distributed vision is just plain
hypocritical, so you are happy *USING* it, and passing device which contain it
along to friends / family, but distributing it in a way where it is not hidden
inside a device is not OK?


Anyways this will be my last mail in this thread, I cannot argue against so
much hypocrisy and bend around corners logic.


Regards,

Hans


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 08:49 AM
David Woodhouse
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 10:08 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Putting it simply there are 2 possible stances on non-free firmware:
>
> 1) Its evil and as such should be erradicated, therefor I will not buy or use
> any devices with it. Nor will I add support for any devices containing
> non-free firmware to my Free operating system
>
> 2) Its evil, but allas it is here, so although we are not in favor it we
> condone it.
>
> The its evil, but ok as long as not distributed vision is just plain
> hypocritical, so you are happy *USING* it, and passing device which contain it
> along to friends / family, but distributing it in a way where it is not hidden
> inside a device is not OK?

I wouldn't even say it's evil. It's just a fact of life.
Unfortunate, perhaps, but not actually _evil_.

Fedora is quite happy to ship firmware which is merely 'distributable'
and not Free Software. However, we would like to support those who want
to be able to make spins of Fedora which _don't_ include the firmware.

Also, distributing proprietary code without source, as _part_ of a GPL'd
work, is a clear violation of the GPL.

That's why, in the case of the firmware which is currently in the kernel
package itself, FESCo has agreed that we would like to ship that
firmware _separately_ rather than as part of the kernel package.
There's no hypocrisy in that, surely?

Thus the git tree at git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/firmware-2.6.git
which is making progress on getting drivers to use request_firmware().

For now, this does keep the firmware in the same tree; we run 'make
firmware_install' to make a separate kernel-firmware package. In time,
it'd be nice to remove it to a separate source package altogether -- but
we'll do things one step at a time.

Please send patches

--
dwmw2

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 08:58 AM
jeff
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Hans de Goede wrote:

jeff wrote:

Hans de Goede wrote:
Really, arguing that Fedora's stance is inconsistent, while in
reality yours is doesn't gain you much respect. Either:


1) all firmware is software and must be free in which case support
for evil hardware which comes with the firmware embedded must be
removed from linux-libre!


No, because the goal of linux-libre is to have a kernel which doesn't
distribute non-free software.




Oh, but promoting the usage and buying of devices which contain non-free
firmware by supporting those is ok,


When have I ever done that??? You're just putting words in my mouth.

because it isn't non-free firmware
that is evil. It is the distributing of non-free firmware that is evil.
Yes a very consistent and logical pov for which I applaud you!


I have never used the word evil wrt software. Again, you are putting words in
my mouth.


But not distributing non-free software is definitely a goal. It is also the
supposed mission of Fedora.


Basicly the message you are sending is: people please by devices with
firmware in rom, preferably otp rom, because then certainly there is no
evil.


That's the message I'm sending?>?!? Again, you're just putting words in my
mouth. I've never said anything of the sort.


Not being able to ever change the firmware is good, because as
long as firmware never gets distributed separately from the hardware, we
can pretend its not there and live our ignorance is bliss lifes thinking
that we are in the all software in my house is free utopia. Because if I
cannot see it it isn't there.


Uh, actually, I don't think that way at all. Again, you are just making things
up that you say I am thinking. For one, I know I'd *love* to remove the
non-free BIOS from my Eee, for example (and willing to pay developers to do that).


You're just making shit up.

Really that I didn't think of this before, it is so brilliant! I guess I
should do away with all my PC's and instead switch to an internet
appliance device, because then I no longer have to worry about whether I
have any non-free software at all. Certainly if I don't need to install
the software myself it isn't there at all then.


We're talking about



* * * SOFTWARE THE FEDORA PROJECT IS ---> DISTRIBUTING <--- * * *



not about the hardware people already have.

2) all firmware is considered part of the hardware, independend of
the distribution mechanism of that firmware (the Fedora pov).





---> No, the difference is Fedora is *DISTRIBUTING* the non-free
bits. <---


So the goal of linux-libre is to not distribute non-free software. Do
you ever buy a PC / laptop?


Yes.

If so you're involved in a transaction which
almost certainly involves the distribution of non-free firmware. Worse,
not only are you involved in such a transaction, you are _paying_ for
the system of which the non-free firmware is an integral part and thus
you are paying for non-free firmware, thereby promoting the production
of non-free firmware.


Yes, and that sucks. And stallman had to originally write emacs on SunOS or
whatever he used. It doesn't mean we should stop trying to make things free.


Do you ever sell any of you PC hardware (motherboard, latop, printer)
second hand and / or give it away to friends / family, then you are
*DISTRIBUTING* non-free firmware. Really, they should put you in prison
for that!


...


Please stop being so hypocritical.


I'm not being hypocritical.


Putting it simply there are 2 possible stances on non-free firmware:


Only 2?


1) Its evil


Well, this is wrong from the start because I don't even believe in evil. Anyway.

and as such should be erradicated, therefor I will not buy
or use

any devices with it. Nor will I add support for any devices containing
non-free firmware to my Free operating system


I see it more like RMS originally writing emacs on a proprietary system. Though
removing devices that *only* run with proprietary firmware may be a
possibility, though many devices run fine without the firmware (for example,
the tg3 will run without the firmware that's in the kernel).



2) Its evil, but allas it is here, so although we are not in favor it we
condone it.


3) non-free software sucks and we should do our best to not distribute it.

But you're not *condoning* it you're ***DISTRIBUTING*** it.

The its evil, but ok as long as not distributed vision is just plain
hypocritical, so you are happy *USING* it, and passing device which
contain it along to friends / family, but distributing it in a way where
it is not hidden inside a device is not OK?


But I'm not claiming that is free software if I hand someone a macbook or
whatever. I'm also not happy if there is non-free software in there (but i'd
just install free software on there).


I think the "not OK" part comes in when you say that you are distributing
free/open software when you aren't and you know it.


Anyways this will be my last mail in this thread, I cannot argue against
so much hypocrisy and bend around corners logic.


So much hypocrisy? You just put tons of words in my mouth that I've never said.
Pfft.


-Jeff

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 09:12 AM
Alan Cox
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 02:39:00PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Bingo.. and copyright does not give you power over other works
>
> Rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution
> of derivative or _collective_ works based on the Program.

See earlier discussion. Its your viewpoint that these are somehow derivative.
I'm disagreeing. Please take the discussion to the GNU lists

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 09:17 AM
Hans de Goede
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

jeff wrote:

Hans de Goede wrote:

jeff wrote:

Hans de Goede wrote:
Really, arguing that Fedora's stance is inconsistent, while in
reality yours is doesn't gain you much respect. Either:


1) all firmware is software and must be free in which case support
for evil hardware which comes with the firmware embedded must be
removed from linux-libre!


No, because the goal of linux-libre is to have a kernel which doesn't
distribute non-free software.




Oh, but promoting the usage and buying of devices which contain
non-free firmware by supporting those is ok,


When have I ever done that??? You're just putting words in my mouth.



Try reading my sentence again "promoting ... by supporting", as the
kernel-libre package still supports hardware that contains non free firmware it
is promoting the use of that hardware by _supporting_ that hardware.


because it isn't non-free firmware that is evil. It is the
distributing of non-free firmware that is evil. Yes a very consistent
and logical pov for which I applaud you!


I have never used the word evil wrt software. Again, you are putting
words in my mouth.




Evil is indeed my choice of words, I use it as a nice short way to describe
everything wrong with non-free software, nothing more and nothing less.


Basicly the message you are sending is: people please by devices with
firmware in rom, preferably otp rom, because then certainly there is
no evil.


That's the message I'm sending?>?!? Again, you're just putting words in
my mouth. I've never said anything of the sort.




Well, you want Fedora to change so that it will only work out of the box with
devices which have the firmware in rom, so yes that is the message you are sending.



We're talking about



* * * SOFTWARE THE FEDORA PROJECT IS ---> DISTRIBUTING <--- * * *



That is one vision, another vision is we are talking about a bunch of bits,
which are part of the hardware. In some cases these bits which are part of the
hardware happen to be stored in a non-volatile storage on the hardware and put
on a non-volatile medium which is not physically part of the hardware, in these
cases the operating system needs to get this bits from the non-volatile medium
and put them in the volatile medium in the hardware before it can use the
hardware. That doesn't make these bits any more or less part of the hardware as
when they were in a rom.


So what you call software I call part of the hardware, see word game again.

Note I'm not against the idea of having a variant of Fedora which does not
contain firmware for those who want that, I actually support that idea!


But saying that Fedora cannot call itself a Free OS because it doesn't match
your definition of Free seriously rubs me the wrong way. Also these kind of
posts are not helping your case at all, they only serve to alienate the few
supporters you have within the Fedora development community.


Regards,

Hans

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 09:18 AM
Alan Cox
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 09:08:01PM -0300, jeff wrote:
> Has RedHat ever had the source code to the driver?

There is no such thing as "RedHat" it is "Red Hat". This is a trademark so
proper use matters.

Any legal questions with regards to Red Hat matters and materials should
be addressed to legal@redhat.com.

Alan

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:52 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org