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 06-17-2008, 02:20 PM
max
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

Anders Karlsson wrote:

* David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> [20080617 15:22]:
[snip]

Sounds to me like the argument circles around some warped
interpretations of the conundrum if a hamburger in a cardboard box is
a piece of the box or if it in fact, is a hamburger that can be eaten
separately without having to eat the box too...

No. It's more along the lines of having a cheeseburger with lettuce,
tomatoes, and onions in a carboard box. The box is the medium in which
the cheeseburger is distributed. But are the pieces inside merely
aggregated together or are they part of a single work? After all, you
can take the cheeseburger apart and consume the bun, the burger, the
lettuce, etc separately (or not at all). But the person who prepared it
and distributed it to you didn't intend for that to happen.


-Toshio "who will go back to ignoring this thread now" Kuratomi



Wouldn't you have to have not been ignoring this thread to make that
statement?


--
Fortune favors the BOLD

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-17-2008, 02:52 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

David Woodhouse wrote:


As the rest of the sentence continues to say "then this License, and its
terms, do not apply to those sections" I think you are one being
misleading here. There is some room for disagreement on the
separateness but not about whether aggregations are permitted when those
specified conditions are met.


Here's the whole thing in context since you seem to be incapable of
finding it in the thousands of COPYING files you must have:


"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works."


That part is a simple statement of copyright law. as a prelude to what
comes next. As it says, the GPL doesn't even _apply_ to those parts when
you distribute them separately. How could it? The GPL only operates by
giving you back permissions which copyright law took from you -- and the
GPL _cannot_ apply to those parts, when you distribute them as separate
works.

But you seem to have 'accidentally' cut out the next sentence of the
same paragraph:


No, if you meet the criteria above, the rest is irrelevant.


Or are you trying to make the incredible claim that in fact, the
firmware embedded somewhere in a bzImage file -- where we can't even
find it to extract it -- _is_ being distributed as a separate work,
rather than as a part of a whole which is based on the kernel?


It doesn't say _you_ have to be able to extract it. In the context of a
computer program, I can only interpret the terms "identifiable sections"
and "separate" in terms of the computer's handling of the sections, and
I have no doubt that the data sections where these chunks of data are
stored are identifiable (or the devices wouldn't work) and they are
separate things from the kernel program code or even data used in
calculations. The fact that they are temporarily compressed into some
particular format or other should not affect the copyright status of the
parts any more than printing something in the same font or on the same
page as something else would make them the same thing.



If so, you would have to be _very_ deluded.


I'd admit there's room for interpretation here, but so far you haven't
made much of an argument other than proximity for why firmware would be
part of "the Program", or what attributes you think are required to
establish separateness.



That's almost as silly as
the 'but we _like_ to use hex editors on our kernel, so we _are_
providing it in the preferred form for modification' defence.


If it's silly, then you shouldn't have any problem showing where it is
executed as part of "the Program", or defining exactly why it isn't a
separate section, or perhaps why proximity matters. But you haven't
done any of that yet.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com





--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-17-2008, 07:11 PM
max
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

jeff wrote:

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.



You are starting to work against yourself. Firmware usually comes with
my devices, it is reloadable but it comes with the device when I make
the purchase, I don't have to load firmware into a device to make it
work in the first place. It is part of the hardware because the hardware
requires it to run. I thought that was why software and firmware where
two different terms. Firmware is software but the hardware relies on it
to function and it is included in the purchase price of the hardware.
Software is generally acquired separately from the hardware.
Windows(software) comes preinstalled on many computers(hardware) but I
can remove windows and still have functional hardware but if I remove
the BIOS , windows nor linux will run.


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


* Derived from proprietary unpublished source code,


-Jeff




--
Fortune favors the BOLD

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-17-2008, 07:56 PM
jeff
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

max wrote:

jeff wrote:

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.



You are starting to work against yourself. Firmware usually comes with
my devices, it is reloadable but it comes with the device when I make
the purchase, I don't have to load firmware into a device to make it
work in the first place. It is part of the hardware because the hardware
requires it to run. I thought that was why software and firmware where
two different terms. Firmware is software but the hardware relies on it
to function and it is included in the purchase price of the hardware.
Software is generally acquired separately from the hardware.
Windows(software) comes preinstalled on many computers(hardware) but I
can remove windows and still have functional hardware but if I remove
the BIOS , windows nor linux will run.



If you remove the non-free software from tg3.c the device will still work. "It
is part of the hardware because the hardware requires it to run", you wrote.
What does that make the non-free software in tg3.c?


-Jeff

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-17-2008, 09:25 PM
max
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

jeff wrote:

max wrote:

jeff wrote:

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.



You are starting to work against yourself. Firmware usually comes with
my devices, it is reloadable but it comes with the device when I make
the purchase, I don't have to load firmware into a device to make it
work in the first place. It is part of the hardware because the
hardware requires it to run. I thought that was why software and
firmware where two different terms. Firmware is software but the
hardware relies on it to function and it is included in the purchase
price of the hardware. Software is generally acquired separately from
the hardware. Windows(software) comes preinstalled on many
computers(hardware) but I can remove windows and still have functional
hardware but if I remove the BIOS , windows nor linux will run.



If you remove the non-free software from tg3.c the device will still
work.
Completely? no loss of functionality whatsoever? can you still interact
with it? I need to be able to interact with a device in order for it to
be useful to me. My car will run without a driver but its not going
anywhere. My computer will run without an operator but human
interaction is required at some point to make it useful to me, if only
for initial setup.



"It is part of the hardware because the hardware requires it to
run", you wrote.


I phrased it poorly in hindsight but its more or less true in most
cases, or I should have said that its needed to interact with other
hardware or software. At some point it has to be configurable by a
person through some extension or another in order to be useful. I don't
think manufacturers obsessed with the bottom line are hiring programmers
to write unneeded firmware just to annoy free software advocates.


>What does that make the non-free software in tg3.c?


Unnecessary but is that the case in every instance?

I am perfectly willing to be educated/corrected and I have heard
arguments from both sides that have merit, I am tempted to send a copy
of the GPL to my lawyer and get the interpretation of someone who
doesn't have a horse in this race.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-17-2008, 09:53 PM
jeff
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

max wrote:

jeff wrote:

max wrote:

jeff wrote:

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.



You are starting to work against yourself. Firmware usually comes
with my devices, it is reloadable but it comes with the device when I
make the purchase, I don't have to load firmware into a device to
make it work in the first place. It is part of the hardware because
the hardware requires it to run. I thought that was why software and
firmware where two different terms. Firmware is software but the
hardware relies on it to function and it is included in the purchase
price of the hardware. Software is generally acquired separately from
the hardware. Windows(software) comes preinstalled on many
computers(hardware) but I can remove windows and still have
functional hardware but if I remove the BIOS , windows nor linux will
run.



If you remove the non-free software from tg3.c the device will still
work.

Completely?


Yes.


no loss of functionality whatsoever?


I think the firmware does some TCP offloading or something so more processing
happens in the card instead of the kernel, but I'm really not certain what the
firmware is doing. In fact, only the people with the source code know what it's
doing, I supppose.


But it works 100% fine as a regular network card without the firmware.

can you still interact
with it?


Yes.

I need to be able to interact with a device in order for it to
be useful to me. My car will run without a driver but its not going
anywhere. My computer will run without an operator but human
interaction is required at some point to make it useful to me, if only
for initial setup.


The card works fine with linux-libre, no firmware required.

"It is part of the hardware because the hardware requires it to run",
you wrote.


I phrased it poorly in hindsight but its more or less true in most
cases, or I should have said that its needed to interact with other
hardware or software.


So you meant "It is part of the hardware because its needed to interact with
the hardware or software" ??? wtf?


At some point it has to be configurable by a
person through some extension or another in order to be useful.


/sbin/ifconfig

I don't
think manufacturers obsessed with the bottom line are hiring programmers
to write unneeded firmware just to annoy free software advocates.


I don't either.


>What does that make the non-free software in tg3.c?


Unnecessary but is that the case in every instance?


Does it have to be? I'm just pointing out the things I see in the Linux kernel
that are clearly not free software.


I am perfectly willing to be educated/corrected and I have heard
arguments from both sides that have merit, I am tempted to send a copy
of the GPL to my lawyer and get the interpretation of someone who
doesn't have a horse in this race.


Please do. And show him a copy of tg3.c too please.

-Jeff

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-17-2008, 11:03 PM
max
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

jeff wrote:

max wrote:

jeff wrote:

max wrote:

jeff wrote:

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.



You are starting to work against yourself. Firmware usually comes
with my devices, it is reloadable but it comes with the device when
I make the purchase, I don't have to load firmware into a device to
make it work in the first place. It is part of the hardware because
the hardware requires it to run. I thought that was why software and
firmware where two different terms. Firmware is software but the
hardware relies on it to function and it is included in the purchase
price of the hardware. Software is generally acquired separately
from the hardware. Windows(software) comes preinstalled on many
computers(hardware) but I can remove windows and still have
functional hardware but if I remove the BIOS , windows nor linux
will run.



If you remove the non-free software from tg3.c the device will still
work.

Completely?


Yes.


no loss of functionality whatsoever?


I think the firmware does some TCP offloading or something so more
processing happens in the card instead of the kernel, but I'm really not
certain what the firmware is doing. In fact, only the people with the
source code know what it's doing, I supppose.


But it works 100% fine as a regular network card without the firmware.


can you still interact with it?


Yes.

I need to be able to interact with a device in order for it to be
useful to me. My car will run without a driver but its not going
anywhere. My computer will run without an operator but human
interaction is required at some point to make it useful to me, if only
for initial setup.


The card works fine with linux-libre, no firmware required.

"It is part of the hardware because the hardware requires it to run",
you wrote.


I phrased it poorly in hindsight but its more or less true in most
cases, or I should have said that its needed to interact with other
hardware or software.


So you meant "It is part of the hardware because its needed to interact
with the hardware or software" ??? wtf?


I said other hardware or software. I am thinking of PCI devices, like a
graphics card, that contain additional code in ROM that is needed by the
BIOS to properly initialize the card at boot time/ during POST. Though a
driver might leverage such code as well for additional functionality
perhaps, though off hand I don't have a specific reference for such an
instance. Of course while you might say the line between hardware and
software is distinct, I don't believe that is the case but that is my
opinion. Technology is evolving everyday and if the line between
hardware and software isn't already blurry, like I see it to be, then
soon it will be because as technology evolves definitions have a
tendency to change.


At some point it has to be configurable by a person through some
extension or another in order to be useful.


/sbin/ifconfig

I don't think manufacturers obsessed with the bottom line are hiring
programmers to write unneeded firmware just to annoy free software
advocates.


I don't either.


>What does that make the non-free software in tg3.c?


Unnecessary but is that the case in every instance?


Does it have to be? I'm just pointing out the things I see in the Linux
kernel that are clearly not free software.




No it doesn't and for the record I applaud your efforts.

I am perfectly willing to be educated/corrected and I have heard
arguments from both sides that have merit, I am tempted to send a copy
of the GPL to my lawyer and get the interpretation of someone who
doesn't have a horse in this race.


Please do. And show him a copy of tg3.c too please.

-Jeff




--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-17-2008, 11:15 PM
David Woodhouse
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 18:53 -0300, jeff wrote:
> > I am perfectly willing to be educated/corrected and I have heard
> > arguments from both sides that have merit, I am tempted to send a copy
> > of the GPL to my lawyer and get the interpretation of someone who
> > doesn't have a horse in this race.
>
> Please do. And show him a copy of tg3.c too please.

Along with the quotes from one of its authors, who also happens to be
the overall network driver maintainer for Linux, and has stated that
each driver and its firmware are 'intimately tied... pieces of a single,
cohesive whole'.

--
dwmw2

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-17-2008, 11:43 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

David Woodhouse wrote:

On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 18:53 -0300, jeff wrote:
I am perfectly willing to be educated/corrected and I have heard
arguments from both sides that have merit, I am tempted to send a copy
of the GPL to my lawyer and get the interpretation of someone who
doesn't have a horse in this race.

Please do. And show him a copy of tg3.c too please.


Along with the quotes from one of its authors, who also happens to be
the overall network driver maintainer for Linux, and has stated that
each driver and its firmware are 'intimately tied... pieces of a single,
cohesive whole'.


That would be a hard claim to support, knowing that at least some of the
firmware comes from the hardware vendor, has nothing in particular to do
with Linux, and may be also used by OS's that have no code in common.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-18-2008, 01:07 PM
max
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

David Woodhouse wrote:

On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 18:53 -0300, jeff wrote:
I am perfectly willing to be educated/corrected and I have heard
arguments from both sides that have merit, I am tempted to send a copy
of the GPL to my lawyer and get the interpretation of someone who
doesn't have a horse in this race.

Please do. And show him a copy of tg3.c too please.


Along with the quotes from one of its authors, who also happens to be
the overall network driver maintainer for Linux, and has stated that
each driver and its firmware are 'intimately tied... pieces of a single,
cohesive whole'.



Why or how have they become "intimately tied"?

--
"Hulk SMASH!!"

--
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 11:27 PM.

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