Hi Farinam, Le mardi 30 novembre 2004 à 14:50 -0500, Farahmand, Farinam a écrit : > Hi Ben, > > We forwarded all the emails regarding the licensing issues fine, thanks for your involvement.
> to Marketing department and I believe it will be reviewed and sent to the > legal department. Please remind them to ask any questions they may have, both to [email protected] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] (our common mailbox) and mine. This will prevent a mail loss, just in case your SMTP admin cannot get solved the problem of filtering by gna - which requires him/her getting removed from rfc-ignorant.org blacklist (he/she only has to create a valid mail address [email protected] from my understanding of http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/policy-postmaster.php ) - as your mail did not get through once again (I'm going to check the exact reason why with my hosting). I'd be glad to have their emails to provide them with necessary pieces of information, I'll keep you in the loop - of course - as this will happen on our public ML. > I do not think we can get any answer by the end of this year. Let's say that in one week, by 7th December, you / your marketing and/or legal department send us their first questions so that we can provide you with answers you need. Sooner will be better. That way we can be sure we work with the same understanding and can define a common action plan. > I will follow up the progress and will get back to you as soon as all the > departments are actively involved. Fine, we'll try our best to provide you with answers to find a common solution. > Can we consider the USB firmware as a table in the driver? I think no, I'm quoting the text of the GPL : http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." If you really modify the firmare.h and BNM files directly, why not ? If you are using a "compiler" to obtain it, what we need is the source code used as input by the "compiler" (which one(s) by the way ?). If you are using a free (in the GPL meaning) compiler, that's even better. Is ADI the only copyright holder on the firmware.h and BNM files ? (that would be easier for you). I had other questions below, that you may choose to review first (I really hope you do not depend on another firm to get this issue solved, it will be easier for all of us). Best Regards. @++ Ben'. aka baud123 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Benoit Audouard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 4:04 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: evolutions for Sagem/ADI + licence issue > > > Re, > Le mardi 23 novembre 2004 à 08:49 +0100, Benoit Audouard a écrit : > > Hi, > > Thanks Farinam for first answer, we'll need some more explanations of > > ADI's choice though. More this evening, once we have had a look at > > everything. > Sorry it took more time than expected on our part. > > > > From: Farahmand, Farinam > > > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 7:08 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: eagle-usb 2.0.0 status report + evolutions for Sagem/ADI > > > > > > Last week, I talked to different parties at ADI regarding the > > > licensing of Layer 1 ( DSP ) and USB firmware source codes. ADI is > > > not providing source code for the firmware :-( The binary files will > > > be distributed freely to end users ( Is public domain licensing good > > > for this? ) > > We'll have to take into account ADI's first current choice => we'll split the > load of the firmware.h from the driver (as was made before to apply a > different license to firmware.h, work is already done for DSPcode). Not doing > so would be a breach of the GPL. > > I'd like to remind ADI that for firmware.h both ADI / Sagem willingly > accepted to release under the GPL in April 2003 (which lead us to include it > directly linked to the driver). Our request for source code is thus > legitimate. > > It has impacts : > 1- planning delays : development + testing will be longer, unless ADI can > change rapidly their position. We will thus not be ready for the 1st > December. I've currently no idea of a new precise planning. > > 2- and potential technical problem for efficient work of the driver > (including the firmware in the driver binary made it faster to load, leading > to less problems with the modem at boot, as it seems that sending firmware > too late causes a stability problem). Furthermore it may require hotplug for > correct work. That can be seen as a regression of the driver. > > I'm sad of ADI's current position and that's the reason why I ask for > explanations that may lead to an easier solution for our common work. > - To be precise, firmware.h corresponds for us to the content of the file > containing the first firmware sent to the modem (what you call USB > firmware) > - DSPcode corresponds for us to the "compiled" version of the BNM files in > "s-record motorola format" (what you call Layer 1 DSP) > - "free distribution" for us corresponds to distribution under the GPL > licence > > Here are some questions : > Is ADI the only owner of the code or is there Intellectual Property that does > not belong to ADI ? > Is ADI afraid of potential patents that would appear with the sourcecode ? > If DSPcode / firmware.h has got IP that belongs to another firm than ADI, you > are now a "prisoner" of this firm will for distribution : ADI may ask them to > free (in the GPL meaning of it) the sourcecode - as naturally as we asked > ADI. I would be sorry for you, if ADI is indeed stuck in this position, which > is really not satisfactory to work. > > For licensing choice, I think that ADI has to involve their legal > departement. I'm not a lawyer (IANAL), hence I'm not sure that in your > country you can release files as public domain - from my understanding, > that's not possible __for example in France__ , you have to keep your rights > (and responsibilities) for your production : hence the natural choice of GPL, > based on copyright. Choosing a permissive license for distribution is > possible but I've not yet suficient information about it and we'd really > prefer understanding ADI's position and motivations before making this final > choice. ADI may have a look at : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > And please (re-)read http://dev.eagle-usb.org/wakka.php?wiki=DeveloppementGPL > : some parts can be explained if they are not clear enough ? > > Le lundi 22 novembre 2004 à 19:11 -0500, Farahmand, Farinam a écrit : > > > I tried to send this email to [email protected] but it bounced > > > back ( the sever could be down) . Please send the message to the mailing > > > list if you can. > Did you solve the problem with you SMTP admin ? It seems that only a valid > [email protected] is required ? > > @++ > Ben'. aka baud123 >
