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 06-10-2008, 04:31 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

David Woodhouse wrote:



Yes I know that. I'm curious why you think the two independent works are
somehow a collective work.


Because they have been assembled into a collective whole; the bzImage
file which is distributed and used as a single entity,


They are aggregated together.


and which makes
use of both the firmware and the GPL'd kernel code.


Separately. The firmware is downloaded to respective devices and is no
more a part of the kernel than the content of a music file is part of
the code that plays it.



Also, in the case of the source code, because they are integrated into
the kernel source and into its build system, and distributed as
complementary parts of a coherent whole.


You aggregate something for distribution. It's not a whole unless the
components are combined. And while this may be a fuzzy area for things
covered by the stock GPL, the version that covers Linux specifically says




I can't find a rational way to interpret it otherwise.


I do not find it rational to assert that the above-quoted exception
exempts _all_ collective work from the preceding conditions, purely on
the basis that it happens to be stored on a 'storage medium'. Such a
wide-sweeping exemption would effectively render the preceding two
paragraphs entirely redundant.


No, what exempts it is the fact that they are separate things both in
their origin and destination.



When it speaks of 'mere aggregation on a volume of a storage or
distribution medium', I take that to mean things like free and shareware
software CDs on the cover of a magazine.


When that was written and for a long time after, there was no GPL'd OS,
so among other things it meant that commercial unix distributors
(without which there wouldn't have been any way to run the GPL'd
code...) could include GPL'd items in their distribution or along with
other add-on packages.


> Not a blanket exemption for

_any_ work which happens to get stored on something we can call a
'storage medium', which would even cover examples like GPL'd programs
using proprietary libraries.


Not _any_ work - just separate works.


You effectively seem to be saying "you can do what you like as long as
you store it on disk", which is not a reasonable interpretation of the
intent of those sections of the GPL.


No, you can take separate works and put them together as long as they
remain separate works - as the stuff loaded into a device's firmware is
separate from the kernel.



We get into the world of 'f the program is GPL then the icons are GPL
because they are connected with it. Or games where you'd argue the
music files magically become GPL


Again, it would depend on whether the icons, or music files, are
distributed as part of a collective whole which is a work based on the
Program. There is no fundamental problem here.


Temporarily aggregating two separate items into one storage container
doesn't change the fact that they are separate items.



And nothing "magically becomes GPL". Either it _is_ available under a
GPL-compatible licence and you are permitted to incorporate it into a
collective work under the terms of the GPL, or not, and you may not do
so. There's no magic involved.


Permission to make a collective work is irrelevant to aggregating
separate things.



Take the cases you think are a collective/derivative and the cases you think are
not and define a test by which this can be ascertained, then perhaps I can
see what you are trying to argue..


As I said, it is a grey area. There is no easy test. We understand what
a collective work is, of course, and we can see that the GPL explicitly
spells out its intention to extend to collective works based on the
Program, and explicitly speaks of its permissions extending to sections
of a collective work which are independent and separate works in
themselves, but distributed as part of a collective work.

The only part which is really subject to interpretation is the part you
quoted above, where it grants an exception for "mere aggregation on a
volume of a storage or distribution medium".


Which is, of course, the relevant part.


You seem to believe that
this exception applies to _anything_ you can store on a hard drive or in
memory


Straw man.. No one said any such thing.


-- which I don't consider to be at all reasonable because it
would effectively render the preceding paragraphs of the ž2 entirely
pointless, and is obviously not consistent with the stated intent.


And an irrelevant argument, since this is covered by the copyright
concepts of derived works.



I believe that exception is intended for things such as magazine cover
CDs, carrying a bunch of mostly unrelated software.


Please... try to imagine the time when that was written and think about
tapes full of commercial software instead.


> It _might_ even (and

I suspect we should hope that it does) cover Linux distributions with
many programs collected together for convenient installation. But when
it comes to such things as a bzImage file which contains both a driver
for some hardware _and_ the firmware which drives it, and which will not
operate on that hardware unless both of those fundamentally intertwined
parts are present, I do not believe that is covered by the exception.


Where does it say that one file format or another is not a reasonable
way to aggregate for distribution?



The test, if a single such test were possible, would probably be
something along the lines of whether the works in question were really
just bundled together on a hard drive or CD as if by coincidence, or
whether they're really interdependent.


Now you are getting somewhere but the answer to any such test won't
depend on _how_ that firmware got installed. That is, if the kernel is
prohibited from being distributed because it depends on firmware, then
it won't matter whether it carries that content along, or it is already
there in ROM or preloaded flash.



It would actually make more sense for me to ask the same question of
_you_, since your interpretation would seem to be rendering that part of
the GPL entirely void. Can you tell us under what circumstances you
believe the GPL _would_ extend to something which is reasonably
considered an 'independent and separate work in itself', and what _your_
'test' would be?


In the past the FSF has claimed that something should be considered a
derived work and covered by the GPL if it needed a GPL'd library to
function, even if it was not distributed together. Since the firmware
contents are specific to the device and typically function with other
OS's, I'd think that makes them independent and separate.



Now I'd like to get to that state anyway so that firmware is nicely seperate
from the kernel sources and it is clearer about licenses and what is what. I'm
unconvinced it is neccessary, but I am not a lawyer.


As I said, there's no real answer to the question of whether it's "mere
aggregation on a volume of a storage or distribution medium"
until/unless a court has ruled on it -- and we each seem to think that
the other's position is irrational.

But I think we can agree that _until_ there's a ruling, including the
firmware in the kernel is just a gratuitous risk.


The same risk goes with any GPL covered work. There's always the chance
that you'll find some part of it had restrictions that make it
impossible to distribute the whole. Being able to read the source
doesn't make a difference in that respect.



At least, I'm
_working_ on making it gratuitous, by removing the _technical_ obstacles
which have historically made it suboptimal to remove the firmware from
the kernel -- and when that's done, it'll just be silly for us to
continue to include it. With the CONFIG_BUILTIN_FIRMWARE config option,
you _can_ still include arbitrary firmware into your kernel, if you want
to take that legal risk. But it'll no longer be the default.


It would make the fact that the firmware images are separate items more
obvious if they were bundled separately from the code that installs
them, but there's really no difference except in the technique used for
aggregation.


--
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 06-13-2008, 09:08 PM
Alexandre Oliva
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Jun 9, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> The tolerance for non-Free Software in Linux's sources (and anywhere
>> else), be it non-Free firmware blobs, be it drivers developed under
>> NDA (whose code is obscured and harder or impossible to understand and
>> adapt to one's needs as a consequence of the NDA), all revolve around
>> acceptance, endorsement and even promotion of unethical practices that
>> I don't want to condone or participate in.

> Not wanting to participate in distributing code without source is one
> thing; calling it unethical is something else and implies that
> everyone else is wrong for doing it.

Merely distributing non-Free Software is not unethical [intent or
disregard for harm upon others], it's only immoral [harmful to society
at large]. It's imposing the restrictions that render Software
non-Free that's unethical. Accepting them, passing them on,
encouraging others to do so are all bad, but they're not as much of an
aggression as initiating the disrespect for others. In fact, most
users who accept such disrespect, and many who pass it on, are more
victims, even though they're ultimately helping the aggressors.
Failure to resist violence does encourage the aggressor to keep on its
act, but being overpowered is not the victim's fault.

> And again, vendors who distribute code without source are not
> necessarily unethical

I don't see how else to describe it. It's willful deprivation of
useful information for understanding and improvement of one's copy of
a program, and deprivation of additional contributions to society. I
don't care how market pressure or other reasons one may use to justify
such acts to one's own conscience. Such reasonings as "it makes
business sense" or "it's more profitable" or "other businesses do it"
could be used to justify slavery as well. Although slavery deprives
people of more fundamental freedoms, dependency on technology nowadays
is growing the importance of the not-so-fundamental human rights that
amount to the 4 essential freedoms of the Free Software definition.

> Personally I consider competition and equality (i.e. having your
> choice of components) to be much more important than source
> availability for any component.

Source code is essential for only two of the four freedoms, so don't
bother focusing only on that part. Don't let yourself be misled by
the term 'Open Source'. Even open source activists know it's not just
about the source being open. It's a matter of not being artificially
prevented from doing a number of things that every software user
should be entitled to do with their own copies of software, just like
they're entitled to store whatever they like in cupboards they
purchase, figure out their functioning, remove internal walls to make
room for larger items, and create other identical or different
cupboards for themselves and for others. Same goes for chairs,
tables, houses, bikes, etc. The fact that software is mostly
intangible should make all this all easier, rather than becoming a
tool to create dependency and control people.

> Thus restrictions on combining and redistributing components are
> much more evil, unethical, and detrimental to long term developments
> than any current NDA or binary blob could ever be.

I agree with that to a large extent, but it's the law. As long as the
law is the way it is, it can be at least put to a better use, to
maintain a level playing field.

Remember, the GPL doesn't prohibit combining or redistribution, it's
the law that does; the GPL permits very broad cases of combination and
redistribution that respect others' freedoms.

But then, see, I'm not trying to prohibit anyone from creating this
combination that contains non-Free Software or distributing it. What
I'm concerned about is maintaining a variant that doesn't contain any
such non-Free Software, and offering it to whomever might be
interested in using it.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member íSÚ Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-13-2008, 09:27 PM
Alexandre Oliva
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Jun 9, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Even if such a copyright existed, it would not resemble the GPL which
> explicitly permits works with other terms to be aggregated

Subject to certain conditions, such as that the whole derivative work
be offered under the terms of the GPL, the corresponding source code
for the entire work be offered, etc. The exception is the narrow case
in which you can show that you're merely aggregating the works in a
volume of storage or distribution medium.

But the moment you claim the aggregate containing a GPLed work is a
work in itself, say by claiming copyright over the collection of
programs adapted and engineered so as to work as a whole, and
attaching a license to it, it's no longer clear that you're still
covered by the exception, after all the whole work is evidently a
derived work from the GPLed work, and after all the adaptation, it's
not clear at all that it is mere aggregation.

> You'll note that printed combinations of different works do exist
> and the terms under which each is included do not affect the others.

Could this be just because the terms of each grant permission for the
publication of collective works derived from it, not subject to any
conditions?

> And thus it has no relationship to other things that might be carried
> in the same container, regardless of the form of that container.

The important question is whether or not the container amounts to a
copyrightable work, evidently derived from the contained parts if so.

> Firmware that happens to live in a vmlinuz container

Forget the kernel binary. Think of the sources. What is/are the
license/s of the work published as linux-2.6.25.tar.bz2? Do you have
permission to modify any part of it you want, according to the terms
of the GPL?

There's no dispute that the firmwares are independent works and that
they stand on their own. The important question is whether the GPLed
portions of the *kernel* are an independent work that stands on its
own. ATM, it doesn't look like it is. The only thing we get is a
work that claims to be an aggregate, but if we go looking for the
separate pieces, we can find all but the biggest of them. And it's
this biggest piece I'm concerned about.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member íSÚ Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-13-2008, 09:35 PM
Alexandre Oliva
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Jun 9, 2008, Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com> wrote:

> the tg3 file may be available on its own from your own tree.

So, before gNewSense cleaned up the kernel in a way that ended up
being called linux-libre, it didn't exist as a separate work to be
aggregated into other works and result in linux-2.6.25.tar.bz2?

And then, since it clearly wasn't the case that these works released
under the name linux-libre were combined with a bunch of firmwares to
form the non-libre linux releases (there's a causal loop in there
somewhere), how does the fact that it's accidentally available from my
own tree matter? That's not how copyright works, and you know that.

>> > and also on the boundaries of contract created by copyright.
>>
>> ?!?!? Copyright does not create contracts. Copyright creates

> Bingo.. and copyright does not give you power over other works

Nobody's talking about power over other unrelated works. We're
talking about derivative works formed by combining together multiple
works. There's no doubt that copyright does give the holder power
over this case. The only possible doubt is whether the combination
forms a copyrightable work.

> I do not need your permission to put your book on the same bookcase
> as someone elses book.

The result is clearly not a copyrightable work.

> Nor do you have any standing to impose restrictions relating
> to other works via copyright.

True, but this is a distraction. Nobody's restricting other works.
The issue the debate was turned into is whether the GPLed work can be
distributed in this way. The more people insist 'taking it out will
break', the weaker the 'mere aggregation' defense becomes.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member íSÚ Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-13-2008, 09:47 PM
Alexandre Oliva
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Jun 9, 2008, Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 02:54:07PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> license or by copyright law. As I stated before, it's a moral,
>> ethical and social issue, even if it's also a negligible legal issue.

> You can load the CPU firmware updates by

> - Having the BIOS load it
> - Having the kernel load it
> - Having user space apps load it

This completely neglects the question as to how you got the firmware
update in the first place.

It's like going "Your honor, I shouldn't be punished for the alleged
murder because I didn't kill the victim, the bullet did. I just
pulled the trigger. Anyone else could have done that and the victim
would end up dead just the same, so why should I be punished for
something that anyone else could have done?"

What kind of a defense is that?

It's obvious that who put the bullet in motion has responsibility over
the result, even though the victim could have got the bullet in her
chest with help from anyone else, or even without help.

Likewise, it's obvious that whoever distributed the firmware to you
has responsibility over the result, even though you could have got the
firmware from many others, or even got them straight from the vendor.

Of course, in the case of non-Free Software, the bullet doesn't kill
right away; it rather contains addictive poison that the vendor puts
in there to get the victims dependent, paralyzed and even thinking
it's good for them.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member íSÚ Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-13-2008, 10:24 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Alexandre Oliva wrote:


Likewise, it's obvious that whoever distributed the firmware to you
has responsibility over the result, even though you could have got the
firmware from many others, or even got them straight from the vendor.


Errr, what? Is this list, or the computers that carry it, responsible
for the odd bit of content above, or are you?



--
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 06-13-2008, 10:33 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Alexandre Oliva wrote:


Nor do you have any standing to impose restrictions relating
to other works via copyright.


True, but this is a distraction. Nobody's restricting other works.
The issue the debate was turned into is whether the GPLed work can be
distributed in this way. The more people insist 'taking it out will
break', the weaker the 'mere aggregation' defense becomes.


The way they are aggregated is the distraction since the unrelated
nature of the components would be more obvious if there was a file-level
split between firmware payload and deployment code. But whether they
are temporarily aggregated into the same file or not doesn't change
their underlying status as different things.


--
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 06-13-2008, 11:20 PM
Alexandre Oliva
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

> On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 10:43 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:


On Jun 10, 2008, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:

> Because they have been assembled into a collective whole; the bzImage
> file which is distributed and used as a single entity, and which makes
> use of both the firmware and the GPL'd kernel code.

And some people even go as far as claiming this whole is under the
GPL, which is evidently false.

> Such a wide-sweeping exemption would effectively render the
> preceding two paragraphs entirely redundant.

Yup. Which would be inconsistent with the way these things would be
interpreted in a court of law. "If interpreting this sentence this
way renders this other useless or nonsensical, while there's another
interpretation that doesn't, then the former can't be the correct
interpretation".

> And nothing "magically becomes GPL". Either it _is_ available under a
> GPL-compatible licence and you are permitted to incorporate it into a
> collective work under the terms of the GPL, or not, and you may not do
> so. There's no magic involved.

And then, if you do distribute the work you got under the GPL in spite
of not having permission to do so in a particular way, you're not only
infringing on copyrights, you're also getting your license over the
work revoked, so you no longer have permission to modify or distribute
it in any other way unless you manage to reinstate the license.

>> Take the cases you think are a collective/derivative and the cases
>> you think are not and define a test by which this can be
>> ascertained, then perhaps I can see what you are trying to argue..

> As I said, it is a grey area. There is no easy test.

And there's no reason why it's our burden to provide such a test. It
suffices that we provide one interpretation that a court of law could
possibly accept. It doesn't even have to be convincing for our biased
interlocutors, for it would be enough to convince an unbiased court.

> It _might_ even (and I suspect we should hope that it does) cover
> Linux distributions with many programs collected together for
> convenient installation.

When such distros come with a copyright notice over the collective
work, a license for the whole, and the various pieces were customized
to operate as a unit, it would be a bit difficult to argue it's not a
derivative/collective work rather than mere aggregation, methinks out
loud.

> But when it comes to such things as a bzImage file which contains
> both a driver for some hardware _and_ the firmware which drives it,
> and which will not operate on that hardware unless both of those
> fundamentally intertwined parts are present, I do not believe that
> is covered by the exception.

I think the case of bzImage may actually be more defensible than that
of combined sources, in which a single file contains both GPLed and
GPL-incompatible code, and if you just take out the GPL-incompatible
code (is that a modification? to which code, under which license?)
it won't even compile. Say, the bzImage directly containing these is
not all that different from concatenating to the bzImage an initrd
containing both modules and firmwares. The only doubt is whether
there's still an identifiable separate work in the former case that
amounts to the GPLed source code. It's clear that there is such a
work in the initrd case, and it's clear that the firmware is a
separate work in both cases.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member íSÚ Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-13-2008, 11:43 PM
Alexandre Oliva
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Jun 10, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

> You aggregate something for distribution. It's not a whole unless the
> components are combined. And while this may be a fuzzy area for
> things covered by the stock GPL, the version that covers Linux
> specifically says

Parse error, end of sentence not detected. Please fix and recompile
;-)

> No, what exempts it is the fact that they are separate things both in
> their origin and destination.

And how about during the split-second in which distribution occurs?
Aren't the components combined at that time? Because, remember, it's
distribution that's regulated by copyrigth law. Not the origin, not
the destination.

> When that was written and for a long time after, there was no GPL'd
> OS,

I don't think there is any of these today. Even Fedora, that
purported to be under GPLv2, fixed that mistake some time ago,
adjusting the license over the collective work so as to say something
to the effect that "it's GPLv2 except in as much as this would
conflict with the license of the specific package".

> No, you can take separate works and put them together as long as they
> remain separate works - as the stuff loaded into a device's firmware
> is separate from the kernel.

You're looking at only one side of the question. The other is, is the
kernel separate from the device's firmware? As of today, it very
clearly isn't. Or, what evidence can you provide that the kernel is
an independent work from the firmwares, against the various pieces of
evidence that it is dependent on them?

> Temporarily aggregating two separate items into one storage container
> doesn't change the fact that they are separate items.

Maybe the *temporarily* here is important. What if it's permanent,
and you're subject to verbal attacks if you as much as mention the
possibility of separating them because this would break one of them?

>> I believe that exception is intended for things such as magazine cover
>> CDs, carrying a bunch of mostly unrelated software.

> Please... try to imagine the time when that was written and think
> about tapes full of commercial software instead.

Or rather think about the tapes full of GNU software under GPL, LGPL
and a bunch of other Free Software packages under various other
licenses, some GPL-compatible, some not, built for various operating
systems.

> In the past the FSF has claimed that something should be considered a
> derived work and covered by the GPL if it needed a GPL'd library to
> function, even if it was not distributed together.

IIRC the reasoning goes like, when it is linked with the library, or
gets code from library header files, the copied portions provide
strong indication that the program was developed as a work based on
the library. And then, the copyrightable copied portions actually
make the resulting work actually derived from the library, even if its
sources and object files weren't. And then, if you use dynamic
linking, this copies far less from the library, but it doesn't change
the status in any meaningful way.

>> But I think we can agree that _until_ there's a ruling, including the
>> firmware in the kernel is just a gratuitous risk.

> The same risk goes with any GPL covered work.

Nope. The risk that there might be some unknown restricted portion of
code hiding in a GPLed program is quite different from that of a known
restricted portion. There's even the issue of willful infringement
and accepting the calculated risk.

> It would make the fact that the firmware images are separate items
> more obvious

And it would make the kernel a more clearly separate item again.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member íSÚ Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-14-2008, 12:09 AM
Alexandre Oliva
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Jun 9, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

> What I don't understand is why you think there is some requirement in
> terms of page boundaries or storage mechanism involved in copyright
> separation. I've never seen any such thing.

Mainly because typesetting, line- and page-breaking for a specific
rendering might very well be regarded as modifications for some kinds
of works. Heck, even changing the fonts and their relative sizes may
amount to a modification.

Similarly, if you remove the firmware from the middle of the sources
of a C file where they appear, you have to make further adjustments
such that it as much as compiles again.

> No, it screams common storage, particularly when you know that it runs
> on separate hardware elements and can't possibly be a single work when
> it executes.

The fact that it runs on something is completely irrelevant. That's
what makes it software, but it doesn't change in any way how copyright
applies to it (except here in Brazil, as it turns out, because there's
a separate copyright-like law for software)

>> To be separate works, you'd have to start out by being able to
>> point at and obtain both/all the works separately.

> Where is that requirement stated?

Why should it have to be? Since when does separate mean something
other than separate? How could inseparable works be separate
independent works?

> I believe there there wouldn't be any difference if the identical
> content were already in ROM

There would. You'd have to modify the GPLed code to cope with this.
And you'd need copyright permission to do that.

> This might be made more clear if the loader is generalized and the
> contents separated so that it is obvious that changes in firmware
> contents do not need modifications in the GPL'd mechanism

Aha, *now* we're getting somewhere. Yes, the problem is not that the
firmware is not a separate work. The problem is that the GPLed code
at some point became a derived work from these originally-separate
works. And, per the GPL, the whole could only be distributed together
under the GPL, but one of the originally-separate works can't be
distributed like that. Oops.

> It is an aggregation, explicitly permitted by the GPL,

It is an aggregation, no doubt. But we disagree as to whether it's
the kind of mere aggregation that would make it elligible for the
additional permission granted by the GPL for this case.

> I don't think that's a sufficient reason for me to want to remove
> something, but OK.

>> So you remove the firwmare and notice that the kernel won't compile
>> any more. What now?

> Ignore it, consider it a feature in case you get one of the devices in
> question, or ask someone with permission to modify to make the change
> for you.

Oh, so you do need permission in what you claim to be a separate and
independent work, to cope with the absence of another
unarguably-separate independent work. Can you see the inconsistency
in your position yet?

>> Do you get permission to modify the kernel
>> (creating a derived work thereof) just because it won't compile after
>> you rip off a "separate work"?

> If it mattered that much, I'd try to figure out why the removal
> affected compilation and supply a compiler-satisfying substitute.

Wouldn't that be modification of the source file for which you need
permission?

Say, you have:

# Copyright 2006 Evil Empire, Inc, all rights reserved,
# except for the portion between quotes in the assignment to "fw"
# below. You have permission to remove that portion, but no other
# permission is granted as far as modifying this program goes.


# This firmware is Copyright 2004 SFS

# It is licensed under the terms of the GUN GLP version 3.14, or any
# newer version published by the SFS.

# Please see fw.asm for the sources and the complete licensing terms.

fw="0xde 0xad 0xbe 0xef 0xe7 0xc0"

if test -z "$fw"; then
echo you loser, you have just made this completely useless
fi

... lots of otherwise-useful code ...


What do you make of this?

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member íSÚ Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
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 12:57 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ę2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org