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 07-22-2008, 12:17 PM
"Yaakov Nemoy"
 
Default Firmware packages with a mislabelled license?

Hi List,

I've been asked to investigate licensing issues in two packages.

zd1211-firmware.

This package is labelled as GPLv2+. From what I gather on
sourceforge, the distributed tarball distributes binary blobs. There
is also the following comments regarding licensing in Debian.

http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/z/zd1211-firmware/zd1211-firmware_2.16.0.0-0.1/zd1211-firmware.copyright

I had a look at our CVS repo, and we somehow create a makefile that is
used to create some of the files from the C header files. I'm not an
expert on firmwares, so I'm not sure of all the details on the
process. Even so, it seems like we are including a binary blob here.

midisport-firmware

This package is also labelled as GPLv2+. It's pretty clear from the
lines in the spec file that there is no source to speak of.

%build
# Nothing to build

Sourceforge labels it as:

License : BSD License, GNU General Public License (GPL),
Other/Proprietary License

My understanding is that this is a 100% binary blob.

According to the packaging guidelines, binary blob packages like these
are allowed but need to be labelled as "Redistributable, no
modification permitted". One of the maintainers of Blag Linux asked
me to look into this, since according to their policies, these
packages are verboten. I'm still not 100% sure on the first package,
but is this something that I should file a bug against or are there
other considerations I'm missing here?

-Yaakov

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-22-2008, 12:21 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Firmware packages with a mislabelled license?

Yaakov Nemoy <loupgaroublond <at> gmail.com> writes:
> Sourceforge labels it as:
>
> License : BSD License, GNU General Public License (GPL),
> Other/Proprietary License

And that's essentially correct. As I said in the other thread, the correct
license tag for Fedora is:
License: (MIT or GPLv2+) and Redistributable, no modification permitted

The firmware loader is dual MIT/GPLv2+, the actual firmware is only
redistributable. The package contains both.

Kevin Kofler

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-22-2008, 12:55 PM
"Yaakov Nemoy"
 
Default Firmware packages with a mislabelled license?

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
> Yaakov Nemoy <loupgaroublond <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> Sourceforge labels it as:
>>
>> License : BSD License, GNU General Public License (GPL),
>> Other/Proprietary License
>
> And that's essentially correct. As I said in the other thread, the correct
> license tag for Fedora is:
> License: (MIT or GPLv2+) and Redistributable, no modification permitted
>
> The firmware loader is dual MIT/GPLv2+, the actual firmware is only
> redistributable. The package contains both.

http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/devel/midisport-firmware/midisport-firmware.spec?view=markup

Then this is a clear bug. I'll fire up bugzilla.

-Yaakov Nemoy

--
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 10:12 PM.

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