Hi! Am I the only one to believe that this firmware discussion is getting a bit out of touch? I mean, the firmware is not running inside a gnu system, right? It is running on an external device.
I can't see how uploading binary firmware would be different from relaying encrypted mail. mvh // Jens M andreasen On tor, 2004-04-29 at 20:00, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Dear all, > > Takashi from ALSA asked me to put him on Cc: in order to discuss the > whole issue in great depth - since he's overburden by e-mail (how I > can understand that!) he prefers to be able to follow the thing more > directly, hence the Cc:. > > Let's keep discussing. My personal goal is to reach a wide consensus > amongst the community (counting the ALSA folks, the LAD people, and > possibly the FSFE - as well, of course, the AGNULA project people) on > this subject, and then decide for a route to follow. > > What I don't want to do (and I can't do) is simply deciding by myself > to include possibly non-free software (if you consider firmware > software, which is another problem) inside AGNULA. > > bye! > > andrea > > >>>>> "Andrea" == Andrea Glorioso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > [I'm putting the users@ and [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Cc: > > for informational purposes, and the [EMAIL PROTECTED] to hear > > the opinion of the FSFE on the matter. If LADders prefer not to > > continue the discussion on linux-audio-dev, I'm sure nobody will > > object to removing the latter list from the Cc:s :) ] > > > [For the list on Cc: we are talking about the redistributability > > and GNU GPL compliance of the alsa-firmware package, as well as > > of firmware in general, I'd say] > > >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Charbonnel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> First of all thanks for Dyne:bolic :) All README files from the > >> alsa-firmware package grant copyright to the respective > >> companies with the statement 'Redistributable under the GPL', > >> so I guess the answer is yes. As far as I'm concerned we > >> received several verbal and mail confirmations from RME that we > >> could redistribute the files, and Matthias Carstens (who I just > >> met last week) promised me an official written statement. > > > I absolutely don't want to start a legal debate here, given that > > it would probably be off topic and the issue has already been > > (and is being) widely discussed on the debian-legal mailing > > list, but please notice that AFAICT distributing binaries under > > the GNU GPL license means that the distributor must > > > (a) Accompany [the program] with the complete corresponding > > machine-readable source code [...] > > > (b) Accompany [the program] with a written offer, valid for at > > least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more > > than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a > > complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code > > [...] > > > (there is also option (c), see the GNU GPL v.2 for further > > details) > > > The point here is understanding what the `source' of a piece of > > firmware is. > > > The GNU GPL defines the `source' as the "the preferred form of > > the work for making modifications to it". Now the debate on > > debian-legal has been whether the hex-expressed firmware > > discovered in various kernel files was actually hand-modified by > > the "distributor" with a hex editor, or a higher-level language > > was used. If the latter is true, then the GNU GPL has been > > breached (because I've never seen the source code of the > > alsa-firmware package, please correct me if I'm wrong). > > > So, saying that the firmware is "distributable under the GNU > > GPL" is not sufficient `per se' to prove that the firmware > > itself is Free Software. > > > My personal position is one of being a bit more pragmatic. A > > large part of the hardware we use actually has firmware embedded > > into it, the only difference being that we don't see it and we > > don't need to upload it (for example, AFAICR the Pentium IV > > automatically translates standard Intel machine code into an > > internal, risc-like, set of instructions - nobody is asking > > Intel for the source code of *that* firmware). > > > The issue is thorny and I agree that a Live CD without > > alsa-firmware is not particularly efficient. On the other hand, > > I do see legal (as well as ethical, if one wants to go down that > > route) problems in distributing non-free firmware. I'd like to > > understand the various options a bit more before launching > > ourselves into the "users-need-it-so-lets-package-it" frenzy > > (I'd rather tell users that they must bug the companies they buy > > hardware from to release the `source code' of the firmware > > needed to operate those cards under GNU/Linux, if we discover > > that the firmware is actually non-free). > > > Usual caveats apply: IANAL, YMMV, etc, etc. If anybody has a > > deeper insight into the matter I'd love hearing it, since the > > problem has been a PITA for us for a long time (see the > > lists.agnula.org archives and devel.agnula.org `demudi' > > project's bug lists if you are interested). > > > Bye, > > > -- Andrea Glorioso [EMAIL PROTECTED] AGNULA Technical > > Manager http://www.agnula.org/ M: +39 333 820 5723 F: +39 (0)51 > > 930 31 133 "Libre Audio, Libre Video, Libre Software: AGNULA" > > -- > Andrea Glorioso [EMAIL PROTECTED] > AGNULA Technical Manager http://www.agnula.org/ > M: +39 333 820 5723 F: +39 (0)51 930 31 133 > "Libre Audio, Libre Video, Libre Software: AGNULA"
