Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
In message 874owy8qth@benfinney.id.au, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk writes: Basically he should put there (c) Hubert and licence GPLv3+. Small nit (and all in my layman's understanding): Copyright notices, when they were required at all (most recently in the UCC), were never valid with “(c) Person Name”. That is, “(c)” doesn't mean “copyright”: Only “Copyright”, the abbreviation “Copr.”, or the copyright symbol “©” are any use as a way of legally indicating a copyright notice. I was really meaning that the author SHOULD claim copyright... These days the UCC is essentially obsoleted by the Berne convention and copyright obtains with or without a valid notice; but if we request such notices, we should at least make them legally-meaningful. legally-meaningful or not, if there's no claim of copyright by the owner, then it's a bugger if you want to use your Free Software rights - it makes it hard for you to exercise them because you can't be sure what they are! -- \ “One of the most important things you learn from the internet | `\ is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It's just an awful lot of | _o__)‘us’.” —Douglas Adams | Ben Finney Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
Robert Millan wrote: For an example, if a program has three authors, one of whom uses BSD, the second uses LGPL 2.1 or later and the third uses GPL 3 then the Venn Intersect is GPL 3, which is the licence that applies to the work as a whole. However, any recipient is at full liberty to strip out parts of the work, and use whatever licence the author granted. Yeah, I understand the combined result is GPLv3; the only doubt I have is whether it's necessary to explicitly mention each license. The combined result is different/new work (with a own license), but derived from other works. Don't confuse single file with combined results. But every file has author(s) and license(s), which are replaceable only by authors. LGPL allow you to use LGPL as a GPL license, but not to change it. If you add new function to a LGPL file, and your changes are GPL only, *practically* the file is only GPL, but the original code is still LGPL, so better to explicit write also the LGPL. (or better: use an other file for your changes: one license per file) ciao cate If it's not, is there anything else we should take care of? Thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk writes: I was really meaning that the author SHOULD claim copyright... […] if there's no claim of copyright by the owner, then it's a bugger if you want to use your Free Software rights - it makes it hard for you to exercise them because you can't be sure what they are! Yes, I fully agree with all this. -- \ “Following fashion and the status quo is easy. Thinking about | `\your users' lives and creating something practical is much | _o__)harder.” —Ryan Singer, 2008-07-09 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 11:47:14AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: Robert Millan wrote: For an example, if a program has three authors, one of whom uses BSD, the second uses LGPL 2.1 or later and the third uses GPL 3 then the Venn Intersect is GPL 3, which is the licence that applies to the work as a whole. However, any recipient is at full liberty to strip out parts of the work, and use whatever licence the author granted. Yeah, I understand the combined result is GPLv3; the only doubt I have is whether it's necessary to explicitly mention each license. The combined result is different/new work (with a own license), but derived from other works. Don't confuse single file with combined results. But every file has author(s) and license(s), which are replaceable only by authors. LGPL allow you to use LGPL as a GPL license, but not to change it. Alright. If you add new function to a LGPL file, and your changes are GPL only, *practically* the file is only GPL, but the original code is still LGPL, so better to explicit write also the LGPL. Sounds reasonable. Hubert, can we do that? Let me know if I can help. (or better: use an other file for your changes: one license per file) I think splitting the files can be cumbersome. I wouldn't do it unless strictly necessary. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: tg3 firmware - was (Fw: [CASE#221365]: Closed - need firmware files)
[CC'd -legal as well; you probably want to follow up there.] On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Daniel Knabl wrote: Seems to me that Broadcom Inc. does really allow Debian to re-distribute the included firmware explicitly. The GPLv2 requires that distributors provide source code in certain circumstances. Source code is defined in the GPLv2 as the preferred form for modification. Unless Broadcom uses a hex editor to modify the firmware, Debian does not have the source code (the preferred form for modification) and therefore cannot provide it upon request. Since Debian cannot comply with the license, it is not permitted to distribute it at all. Doing so would be copyright infringement. If Broadcom were to license the firmware under a revised BSD license or another license that does not require providing source code, then Debian would be permitted to distribute it in non-free. This issue is completely separate from whether the firmware has source code according to the DFSG. As a practical matter, only certain very old revisions of the hardware actually need the firmware at all for basic functionality. Most hardware using the tg3 driver (like my laptop) are completely functional without any firmware at all. Certain extra features, like TCP Segment Offloading (TSO), are enabled by the firmware, but these features are not required for basic functionality. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only troff on top of XML: http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc/code/thwack OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: tg3 firmware - was (Fw: [CASE#221365]: Closed - need firmware files)
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:41:12 + brian m. carlson sand...@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx wrote: [CC'd -legal as well; you probably want to follow up there.] On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Daniel Knabl wrote: Seems to me that Broadcom Inc. does really allow Debian to re-distribute the included firmware explicitly. The GPLv2 requires that distributors provide source code in certain circumstances. Source code is defined in the GPLv2 as the preferred form for modification. Unless Broadcom uses a hex editor to modify the firmware, Debian does not have the source code (the preferred form for modification) and therefore cannot provide it upon request. Since Debian cannot comply with the license, it is not permitted to distribute it at all. Doing so would be copyright infringement. That wasn't the result of the GR: Option 5 Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise http://www.uk.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_003 Do we know if there is source code for this firmware. There is no proof that the firmware does not comply with the GPLv2 AFAICT, therefore the GR requires that we assume that the firmware does comply, whatever that means with regard to the preferred form for modification. Why assume that using a hex editor is impossible? This issue is completely separate from whether the firmware has source code according to the DFSG. How can it be separate? The assertion from your reply was that there was source code behind the hex. Is there *evidence* and *proof* that this is the case? -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgpU3m0cY3frb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
On 04/09/2009 03:57 PM, Robert Millan wrote: If you add new function to a LGPL file, and your changes are GPL only, *practically* the file is only GPL, but the original code is still LGPL, so better to explicit write also the LGPL. Sounds reasonable. Hubert, can we do that? Let me know if I can help. Given that the original code is in a different language, I don't see where this even make sense. Hub -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
[I hope I managed to figure out who I should include in the Cc: list...] On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:58:07 -0400 Hubert Figuiere wrote: On 04/09/2009 03:57 PM, Robert Millan wrote: If you add new function to a LGPL file, and your changes are GPL only, *practically* the file is only GPL, but the original code is still LGPL, so better to explicit write also the LGPL. Sounds reasonable. Hubert, can we do that? Let me know if I can help. Given that the original code is in a different language, I don't see where this even make sense. I think the clean way is adding a note that explicitly states that the file is a (possibly modified) translation into programming_language_2 of code originally written in programming_language_1 and that the original code is Copyright © years original_copyright_holder original_permission_notice Then the note would explicitly state that the translation (and the modifications, if any) are Copyright © years your_name your_permission_notice I hope I clarified what mean. Mind you, this is just what I would do, and my usual disclaimers apply: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpGO53P17nT3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: tg3 firmware - was (Fw: [CASE#221365]: Closed - need firmware files)
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:06:55PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:41:12 + brian m. carlson sand...@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx wrote: [CC'd -legal as well; you probably want to follow up there.] I don't need to be CC'd, thanks. M-F-T set accordingly. On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Daniel Knabl wrote: Seems to me that Broadcom Inc. does really allow Debian to re-distribute the included firmware explicitly. The GPLv2 requires that distributors provide source code in certain circumstances. Source code is defined in the GPLv2 as the preferred form for modification. Unless Broadcom uses a hex editor to modify the firmware, Debian does not have the source code (the preferred form for modification) and therefore cannot provide it upon request. Since Debian cannot comply with the license, it is not permitted to distribute it at all. Doing so would be copyright infringement. That wasn't the result of the GR: Option 5 Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise I'm going to ignore for the moment the fact that this title has a negligible relation to the proposal's content and that the actual proposal supports my point. There are two issues here: * Broadcom says that the entire driver (presumably including firmware) is GPLv2. Because we know that it is not shipped with source code (see below), we know that this is insufficient to make the firmware legally distributable. * The firmware actually has a separate license that reads as follows: * Firmware is: *Derived from proprietary unpublished source code, *Copyright (C) 2000-2003 Broadcom Corporation. * *Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware *data in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this copyright *notice is accompanying it. This license does not allow for modification. Therefore, Debian can legally distribute the firmware, but only in non-free. I have no objection to Debian distributing this firmware in non-free; nevertheless, as I stated in my original post, whether Debian distributes this firmware is mostly irrelevant with regard to having a functioning tg3 driver. Do we know if there is source code for this firmware. There is no proof that the firmware does not comply with the GPLv2 AFAICT, therefore the GR requires that we assume that the firmware does comply, whatever that means with regard to the preferred form for modification. Why assume that using a hex editor is impossible? I'm not saying that using a hex editor is impossible. I'm saying that there's source code: * Firmware is: *Derived from proprietary unpublished source code, *Copyright (C) 2000-2003 Broadcom Corporation. I don't know about you, but I'd much prefer to modify any sort of program, firmware or not, using C or assembly rather than editing the binary directly. I suspect that this is the case for any reasonable programmer. Thus, we do not have the preferred form for modification, and thus, we cannot distribute it under the GPLv2. This issue is completely separate from whether the firmware has source code according to the DFSG. How can it be separate? The assertion from your reply was that there was source code behind the hex. Is there *evidence* and *proof* that this is the case? Yes. Why would Broadcom lie about there being source code? -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only troff on top of XML: http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc/code/thwack OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
On 04/09/2009 06:13 PM, Francesco Poli wrote: I think the clean way is adding a note that explicitly states that the file is a (possibly modified) translation intoprogramming_language_2 of code originally written inprogramming_language_1 and that the original code is Copyright ©years original_copyright_holder original_permission_notice Then the note would explicitly state that the translation (and the modifications, if any) are Copyright ©years your_name your_permission_notice Except that the original files don't have any notice. For those that did, the notice has been kept. Hub -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: tg3 firmware - was (Fw: [CASE#221365]: Closed - need firmware files)
On Apr 10, brian m. carlson sand...@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx wrote: I don't know about you, but I'd much prefer to modify any sort of program, firmware or not, using C or assembly rather than editing the binary directly. I suspect that this is the case for any reasonable programmer. Thus, we do not have the preferred form for modification, and thus, we cannot distribute it under the GPLv2. Thank you for the great work you are doing to improve Debian. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: tg3 firmware - was (Fw: [CASE#221365]: Closed - need firmware files)
On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 03:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Apr 10, brian m. carlson sand...@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx wrote: I don't know about you, but I'd much prefer to modify any sort of program, firmware or not, using C or assembly rather than editing the binary directly. I suspect that this is the case for any reasonable programmer. Thus, we do not have the preferred form for modification, and thus, we cannot distribute it under the GPLv2. Thank you for the great work you are doing to improve Debian. Brian is right; binary-only firmware generally can't be distributed under GPLv2. I forget what the status of tg3 is but Michael Chan of Broadcom has worked with us on separating bnx2 and bnx2x firmware under an appropriate licence, so I expect it will be possible to fix any remaining problems with tg3 firmware licencing. You are doing nothing but insulting people who point out the legal and ethical issues with embedded firmware blobs, and that certainly doesn't improve Debian. Ben. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
Robert Millan wrote: And so on. * Copyright (C) 2009 Hubert Figuiere is simply false, Alright. So, I understand you mean option 1 (see my paragraph starting with The new file seems to be asserting... above). Unless there's a clear consensus in -legal that this is not a problem, I will assume it is. I'm fine with extra clarification, for the sake of correctness, it just means a bit more work. I'll speak with the gnote author about it. and a clear violation of Tomboy's license. Notice license and copyright statements are two separate issues. AFAIK LGPL doesn't explicitly require that a license notice is preserved mixing code with other licenses like the BSD license does, but I could be mistaken. Any advice on this from -legal? License and copyright are one and the same. GPL license relies on copyright law, just like almost any other open source license there is, be it BSD, Artistic or LGPL. Without copyright, the license is meaningless. Without license, you have no right to the source code. There is no contract or patent licenses here. Cheers, - Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
