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, 09:22 AM
Alan Cox
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 03:57:03AM -0300, jeff wrote:
> ---> No, the difference is Fedora is *DISTRIBUTING* the non-free bits. <---

Please go read the Fedora policy on firmware.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 10:09 AM
jeff
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Alan Cox wrote:

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.


But not to me!


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


Thanks. I have written them.

Though this does apply to Fedora too, since Fedora is also distributing the
file 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, 10:11 AM
David Woodhouse
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 05:12 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
> 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

It is indeed my viewpoint that the 'bzImage' kernel image we ship is
either a derivative or collective work based on the GPL'd kernel source
code.

It is also my viewpoint that the Linux source tree, as a whole, is
either a derivative or collective work based on the GPL'd kernel source
code.

I'm surprised you affect to disagree with either of those, but it
doesn't seem that you're likely to change your mind -- so perhaps it's
best we just leave it at that.

--
dwmw2

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 10:27 AM
jeff
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Hans de Goede wrote:
> jeff wrote:

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.


It's software. In the case of tg3.c there is software sitting on someone's hard
drive, they edit that, run it through a compiler, and spit out non-free
binaries which Fedora distributes. Just because it runs on hardware doesn't
make it hardware.


I can't believe you're actually arguing the files in foo-firmware.src.rpm are
*HARDWARE*. What a crock. Fedora ships hardware thru the internet! A triumph!


You certainly (or very much most likely) didn't get them from the hardware
either--you probably got them via ftp.


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.


Wow. I guess doublethinking requires such convoluted logic. Dude, if I can
download it via FTP it isn't hardware. Get real.



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


Ya, it's a word game for you apparently, and you are *clearly* on the bullshit
side of the word game by calling what is software hardware. Since when is
fedora a hardware company, then? pfft. Wouldn't they have to go thru a whole
different regulatory scheme to distribute this "hardware".


-Jeff

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 10:30 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

jeff wrote:


"We try to always do the right thing, and provide only free and open source
software." [1]

It's simply not true and the author of that (Rahul Sundaram I think--he
writes it everywhere else too)


Sorry. That's not me. Don't blame me unnecessarily. Besides what is the
right thing varies depending on the context and is a subjective thing.


Rahul

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 10:41 AM
David Woodhouse
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 16:00 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> jeff wrote:
> >
> > "We try to always do the right thing, and provide only free and open source
> > software." [1]
> >
> > It's simply not true and the author of that (Rahul Sundaram I think--he
> > writes it everywhere else too)
>
> Sorry. That's not me. Don't blame me unnecessarily. Besides what is the
> right thing varies depending on the context and is a subjective thing.

In this context, the 'right thing' seems quite clear. Fedora always
requires an initrd anyway, and we gain no benefit by building this
firmware into our kernel when it might as well be loaded from userspace.

Please help by providing more patches to make drivers use
request_firmware()

--
dwmw2

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 10:49 AM
jeff
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Alan Cox wrote:

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 03:57:03AM -0300, jeff wrote:

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


Please go read the Fedora policy on firmware.


http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines

"Some applications and drivers require binary-only firmware to function. Fedora
permits inclusion of these files as long as they meet the following requirements:"

...

"The files are standalone, not embedded in executable or library code."

Well, what about tg3.c? That's clearly not standalone, for one example.


"The files must be necessary for the functionality of open source code being
included in Fedora."


Again, what about tg3.c? The non-free firmware in tg3.c is *not necessary* for
the driver to work. We have linux-libre users using tg3 successfully without
the firmware, for example.


It seems to me that it fails on two counts of your own policy.


The policy also states: "The License tag for any firmware that disallows
modification must be set to: "Redistributable, no modification permitted""


To me it seems clear, /at a minimum/, that the LICENSE tag of the kernel in
Fedora/RH is incorrect as it says it is "GPLv2", when there are more licenses
involved than just that, some of which say "no modification permitted".


Thanks,

-Jeff

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 10:57 AM
jeff
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Rahul Sundaram wrote:

jeff wrote:


"We try to always do the right thing, and provide only free and open
source

software." [1]

It's simply not true and the author of that (Rahul Sundaram I
think--he writes it everywhere else too)


Sorry. That's not me. Don't blame me unnecessarily. Besides what is the
right thing varies depending on the context and is a subjective thing.


Ah, sorry, I took a quick look at the wiki history and saw your name there (but
didn't pin down the actual line) and from memory recalled you writing similar
stuff in lwn.net comments.


Also, I wasn't arguing about the "right thing" part of it, but the "provide
*ONLY* free and open source software" part.


To be clear: Fedora does not *ONLY* provide free and open source software, they
also ship non-free software which cannot be modified and for which the source
code isn't available to the general public. This isn't an accident or a bug,
but policy.


-Jeff

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 11:13 AM
jeff
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Alan Cox wrote:

On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 09:08:01PM -0300, jeff wrote:

Has RedHat ever had the source code to the driver?

>

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


Not any more. I got this back:

================================================== =======================
Thank you for your message. Please note the following:

This email address has been deactivated. Email sent to this address IS
NOT RECEIVED by a person at Red Hat. If you need to contact us
regarding a legal issue, please send written correspondence to us at:

Legal Affairs
1801 Varsity Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606

Please be aware that the Legal Affairs department cannot give legal
advice to parties outside of Red Hat. Therefore, Red Hat will not
respond to requests for such advice, including but not limited to our
licenses, products or intellectual property. If you have a question
about our End User License Agreements, please refer to
www.redhat.com/licenses for information. If you do not find the answer
to your question there, please consult your attorney. If you do not
have an attorney, we will be happy to provide you with a referral.
================================================== =======================


Though a developer would have a much better idea if Red Hat/Fedora has the
source than a lawyer. The lawyer would just run around and ask the developers.


-Jeff

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 11:25 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

jeff wrote:

Rahul Sundaram wrote:

jeff wrote:


"We try to always do the right thing, and provide only free and open
source

software." [1]

It's simply not true and the author of that (Rahul Sundaram I
think--he writes it everywhere else too)


Sorry. That's not me. Don't blame me unnecessarily. Besides what is
the right thing varies depending on the context and is a subjective
thing.


Ah, sorry, I took a quick look at the wiki history and saw your name
there (but didn't pin down the actual line)


I edit the wiki all the time but that doesn't mean all of the content
there is written by me. You have to be more careful about who you
attribute the source.


Also, I wasn't arguing about the "right thing" part of it, but the
"provide *ONLY* free and open source software" part.


Reading the whole thing in context helps. We are trying to. We might not
be there just yet but we are a doing a hell lot better than most
distributions. Pissing off your best allies isn't going to achieve your
goal.


Rahul

--
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 12:39 PM.

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