From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757973AbYFGJxm (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jun 2008 05:53:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754812AbYFGJxc (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jun 2008 05:53:32 -0400 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:3635 "EHLO spitz.ucw.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754452AbYFGJxc (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jun 2008 05:53:32 -0400 Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 11:53:20 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: David Woodhouse Cc: Arjan van de Ven , David Miller , James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, ksummit-2008-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2008-discuss] RFC: Moving firmware blobs out of the kernel. Message-ID: <20080607095319.GA11033@ucw.cz> References: <1212077700.26088.83.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20080529164745.GA21763@kroah.com> <483F1232.4010003@linux.intel.com> <20080529.140919.160813310.davem@davemloft.net> <483F1C17.8040207@linux.intel.com> <1212102258.20303.6.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20080601161715.GB5555@ucw.cz> <1212763575.32207.333.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1212763575.32207.333.camel@pmac.infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > The firmware is an independent and separate work in itself. Section 2 of > > > the GPL talks about such sections of the work, explicitly. The only way > > > to excuse what we're doing at the moment is to call it 'mere > > > aggregation' -- an exception which was intended to handle stuff like the > > > 'freeware' CDs on the covers of magazines, distributing a bunch of > > > unrelated software. Not a coherent work combining software from > > > different sources into a single entity which works closely together as > > > one, and where one part is useless without the other. > > > > Wait a moment, haven't you just described linux distribution? > > > > I mean, if aggregation clause does not work for firmware in kernel, > > why would it work for packages in distro? > > > > (Actually, seeing some distro EULAs, I wished GPL infected whole > > distro so that I'd not have to read the stupid EULA.) > > That's an interesting question, which has concerned me in the past. > There are certainly those who would claim that the distribution _is_ a > collective work, and not just 'mere aggregation on a volume of a storage > or distribution medium'. Which poses interesting questions. > > I think you might _just_ about get away with arguing to the contrary, as > long as you never refer to the distribution as a collective work which > is copyrightable in its own right, or try to put a EULA on it or > anything like that. At least it's _slightly_ more excusable in that case > than what we were talking about before. Well, distos I seen, did try to claim whole distro is collective work, and did have eula in the front :-(. > > > There are people who own copyright on firmware who refuse to put it into > > > the Linux source tree, because their lawyers don't believe the 'mere > > > aggregation' line, and believe that including it in the kernel source in > > > any form would require them to license it under the GPL. > > > > They can release the firmware under BSD 3-clause, and we can include > > it in kernel, then.... right? (Or into linux-firmware or into whatever > > package that comes handy). > > You may only include it in a GPL'd project if you can distribute the > source code in the preferred form for editing -- unless you claim that Oops, you are right; I overlooked that. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html