On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 20:01:19 +0200 Denis wrote: > On Sat, 2 Oct 2021 11:15:01 -0400 > bill-auger wrote: > > users should never need to see "how the sausage is made", unless they > > choose to "get their hands dirty"; and the FSDG requires neither > Thanks a lot, I wasn't sure if that practice was ok.
to be clear, what i meant, was that as long as users can get everything needed to reproduce the system, the distro is not obligated to share intermediary liberation procedures (unless the software in question is on the "LOSTDNRTFSDG" ugly-list, then they should be shown to this work-group) - if the liberation procedures in the replicant VCS are necessary for users to reproduce the system; then they probably must be disclosed in an obvious way the second part was to say, that distros are not required to accept help from users - distros are only required to accept bug reports from users "transparency" is a nice bonus; but is not required On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 20:01:19 +0200 Denis wrote: > I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it is probably legal to remove the > nonfree bits from the corresponding source code that we provide. remove, yes, probably; but as jean pointed out, publishing diffs which represent the copyrighted code, is probably still a copyright violation - in the case of VCS, i think you would need to deep purge the offending code, so that the VCS contains no trace of it On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 20:01:19 +0200 Denis wrote: > Sometimes the GPL is completely legit: In several out of tree drivers > for WiFi adapters, I found that the firmwares were included as > hexadecimal arrays inside the C source code, and the file where that > happens even has a header stating that it's GPLv2 or GPLv2+. > > In cases like that, the firmware is typically GPLv2(+) but lack the > corresponding source code. And since the hardware vendor who published > that firmware is usually the copyright holder, it won't sue itself. > > However anyone getting a copy of that source code can leverage the > rights given by the GPLv2(+) to make it way easier to produce a free > firmware: In many jurisdictions, there are heavy legal requirements > around reverse engineering, decompilation, using (semi-)automatic tools > to reconstruct source code, etc, but as I understand the GPLv2(+) > removes many of these requirements. how is that legit? - if the copyright holder does not provide the source code to _someone_ who is using the software under the supposed GPL, then it is impossible for _anyone_ to comply with the GPL - that surely invalidates the GPL i think i get your point; but firmware is not a representative example - firmware is an edge case, where efficiency is paramount - the author could always claim that it was written by hand in machine code; so no CCS exists - the blob is already in the "preferred form for modification" - it is reasonable to extend the benefit of doubt, for something so specialized to drive a very specific piece of hardware - for most software though, that same claim would be very weak On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 20:01:19 +0200 Denis wrote: > So in cases like that it would also be a good idea to archive that > source release somewhere, ideally in projects like Archive.org or > Software Heritage but only the copyright holder could publish proprietary code, _anywhere_ - it seems to me that automated archivers such as Software Heritage have a huge liability there - people who publish code on the hosts which Software Heritage pulls from (github for example), grant permission to that one host (per their TOS), to publish code on their behalf, which is otherwise proprietary; but do not extend such permission to anyone else (look but dont touch) if Software Heritage notices any proprietary code in their repos, presumably they would delete it - so, i dont think it could be used for the purpose as you describe, without consent of the copyright holder On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 20:01:19 +0200 Denis wrote: > Since linux-libre removed older releases recently, did some FSDG > distributions had to deal with that in some way? unfortunately, this mailing list, is the best and appropriate place to ask that question, you are not likely to get many responses the only distros which i have seen participating in this work-group in the past 3 years, are replicant, parabola, proteanos, and some others which are waiting for review (and you are a member of two of those three endorsed projects) - the linux-libre team, though not a distro, deserves an honorary mention for participating (AFAICT, this was originally their mailing list) ... which (not to trail off-topic) prompts my next (long overdue) thread ... thanks :)
