Hi, Regarding <http://wiki.debian.net/?KernelFirmwareLicensing>, I've been discussing firmware licensing w/ various hardware vendors. Here a quote from my discussions with QLogic:
> On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 10:22 -0700, David Wagner wrote: > > Andres, > > > > The firmware files mentioned, run entirely in our HBA RISC processor > > and do not execute in the Linux kernel domain. We do not intend to > > distribute the source code for the firmware, only the executable > > files. We put the GPL wording in these file headers at the request of > > our corporate customers, some of which have large legal departments > > which I assume understand the fine points of GPL licensing. > > > > That's fine; I'm not overly concerned whether or not the source code for > the firmware is made available. It would be *nice*, but it's not what > I'm trying to accomplish. What I'm looking for is a clarification of > the license. The GPL is not a valid license for a binary firmware > image. I will expand upon that below. > > > So far all the other Linux distributions are fine with the existing > > files. > > > Debian and Ubuntu are the main distributions (that I'm aware of) right > now that are stripping out the QLogic drivers due to this firmware > licensing issue. I expect others to follow suit, at some point. Right > now, however, my concern is with getting the licensing cleared up so > that Debian can distribute the drivers (I have a Sun machine that > requires the qla2200 driver). > > > Can you tell me what the issue is as far as Debian is concerned? Do > > The GPL specifies that when binaries are distributed, source must be > made available by some means. Currently, if someone were to ask us > (Debian) for the source to the firmware image, we would be unable to > provide it. That would mean we (Debian) are in violation of the > license. It is irrelevant what device the firmware code actually > executes on. Quoting the GPLv2, "The source code for a work means the > preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." Unless > QLogic is creating the binary image with a hex editor, I don't think it > could be argued that the firmware image itself is the source code. > > > > you have suggestions as to the exact license agreement wording that > > you would recommend? > > > > Any Free license that's compatible with the GPL would be just fine. I > have been recommending the BSD license to hardware vendors. For > example: > ... And so on. QLogic wants to have a conference call w/ me and their legal dept, as they have questions on BSD vs GPL licensing. I think it would be good to have someone from d-l on the call as well. Any volunteers? I'd like to get someone knowledgeable about GPL and BSD licensing issues, binary firmware images, and w/ some form of legal background. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
