Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
Thiemo Seufer wrote: Maintaining a bunch of firmware .(u)debs and keeping them in sync with their appropriate kernel version is surely more effort that two kernel packages. No, it's not. The firmware, if done right, will be in architecture-independent, kernel-version-neutral packages. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:04:13AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: Has anyone asked Linus what his feelings are regarding firmware? If he thinks it's acceptable (or possibly even the 'preferred form of modification') to have in Linux and that it's not violating the GPL then I don't think we have a problem. In these cases of ambiguity it makes sense to me to ask the copyright holder to clarify for us instead of assuming that they're violating their own license. I concur with the other responses: Linus is not the sole copyright holder. I'll also reiterate the other problem: even if we believe that the entire Linux kernel developer body agrees (which may be the case, though I doubt it), I'm sure there's a lot of code in the kernel pulled from other GPL projects, whose copyright holders aren't kernel developers at all. At least one developer does not agree - Adam J. Richter of Yggdrasil officially objected to binary-only firmware on the Linux kernel mailing list in the message http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0305.1/0157.html : for the record, I believe that the existing firmware blobs in Linux that do not include source infringe Yggdrasil copyrights on GPL-licensed kernel contributions (just as I believe they infringe many other authors' GPL-licensed contributions). - Josh Triplett
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
Lewis Jardine wrote: [snip] As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of 'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of copyright infringement. So does Debian consider the interests of SCO then? They also claim copyright infringement. If a fully working, tested solution to load non-free firmware from userland into the kernel (thus avoiding the linking problem) Linking means to bind some object files together. Those firmwares aren't distributed as object files. fell from the sky tomorrow, I suspect very few people would suggest that it was A Bad Thing, and that the kernel was better when it had potentially dubious, non-free blobs in it. Which relies on the rather weak legal theory that compiled in firmware is part of a derived work, while the same firmware in a ramdisk image (or even a CD image) suddenly constitutes a collection of works. In my opinion, the problem isn't the principle, merely the practicality: Principle kills practicality, ATM. a delayed Sarge would be annoying, but the products that are necessary for an 'anally-free' Sarge would be of great benefit to users of both Debian, and Free Software in general. What exactly are these great benefits? I see diminished driver support and a lack of documentation, or alternatively non-free as a rather mandatory part of a Debian installation. And this still doesn't count the fight if a jpeg or some font descriptions can be source. Clause four of (even the unamended) social contract, in my opinion, suggests that later is better than less free, and thus the amendment was The Right Thing, even though it may delay Sarge. In my opinion, invoking the Social Contract is Debian's version of Godwin's Law. Thiemo
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:21:27AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: For possible, that is, unsubstantioned license violation claims, yes. Distributing a GPL binary linked against code whose source is not available is a clear-cut violation of the terms of the GPL. I don't think even existing practice and opinions of kernel developers are relevant. Considering that the 2.6.5 kernel has over two million lines of code (on a quick count of only *.c,*.h), it's safe to safe some of that is code reused from other projects. Those copyright holders may not even be aware of the issue yet. I don't think it's safe to be dismissing possible GPL violations so readily. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
Thiemo Seufer wrote: As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of 'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of copyright infringement. So does Debian consider the interests of SCO then? They also claim copyright infringement. I'd hope so, in as much as Debian provides SCO (like all other users) with a high quality collection of Free software (No discrimination against fields of endeavour, remember :) shuffle If a fully working, tested solution to load non-free firmware from userland into the kernel (thus avoiding the linking problem) fell from the sky tomorrow, I suspect very few people would suggest that it was A Bad Thing, and that the kernel was better when it had potentially dubious, non-free blobs in it. Linking means to bind some object files together. Those firmwares aren't distributed as object files. Which relies on the rather weak legal theory that compiled in firmware is part of a derived work, while the same firmware in a ramdisk image (or even a CD image) suddenly constitutes a collection of works. It can be argued under the new social contract amendments that many of these blobs are non-free, and have to go, whether or not they can be included in the kernel image without violating the GPL. If nothing else, it would make the kernel image with the firmwares and the kernel image without the firmwares identical; loading these blobs in at run-time would mean that kernel-blobs-non_free could be packaged separately, saving the pain of having to maintain kernel-image and kernel-image-non_free. a delayed Sarge would be annoying, but the products that are necessary for an 'anally-free' Sarge would be of great benefit to users of both Debian, and Free Software in general. What exactly are these great benefits? I see diminished driver support and a lack of documentation, or alternatively non-free as a rather mandatory part of a Debian installation. Ah. I was seeing clean-roomed/relicensed firmwares, rewritten, Free documentation, etc. I assumed that the reason for the delay was due to reverse-engineering, documentation, and re-licensing. Best case, I was envisaging a back-down by the FSF over the GFDL, and the reintroduction of much of the documentation, under a Free license. Surely it can't take nine months just to take out the stuff that's been declared non-free, and not replace it at all? And this still doesn't count the fight if a jpeg or some font descriptions can be source. I'm not touching that one with a 60 foot pole. Clause four of (even the unamended) social contract, in my opinion, suggests that later is better than less free, and thus the amendment was The Right Thing, even though it may delay Sarge. In my opinion, invoking the Social Contract is Debian's version of Godwin's Law. I'd say that it beats Godwin's Law, as the Social Contract is (at least supposed to be :) relevant to the discussion at hand. -- Lewis Jardine IANAL IANADD
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:22:29 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 06:02:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The former is fine, this merely reinstates the former release
policy. But wilfully distributing software that violates the
license it is shipped under is illegal; and we no longer have a
right to distribute it.
Firstly, where are the GPL violations? All I see in the kernel is
DFSG violations. Those sourceless embedded codes aren't being linked
against the kernel in any way at all.
Would you please not cut out the context, and proceed to
attack strawmen?
We, the Debian Developers, will aim to release Sarge as soon as
technically possible (concerning release critical bugs and the
installer) by following the current release plan[1]. We are aware of
the fact that both Woody and Sarge contain components that violate
the current Social Contract (since they are not free in the sense of
the Debian Free Software Guidelines) and the GNU General Public
The former is fine, this merely reinstates the former release
policy. But wilfully distributing software that violates the license
it is shipped under is illegal; and we no longer have a right to
distribute it.
The GPL violation was what was being proposed we ignore. Here,
let me quote it We are aware of the fact that both Woody and
Sarge contain components that violate and the GNU
General Public License...
Secondly, when did violating the license become illegal? IANAL but
If you get software under license A; and you violate that
license, you no longer ahve the right to distribute it. If you
continue to distribute that work, despite having no rights to do so,
you are in violation of copyright law.
In laymans terms, when you commit an act in violation of the
law, we call it illegal.
isn't a license a form of contract and therefore a civil matter?
And breaking civil law is not illegal where you live? Or you
do not have copyright law?
Illegal \Il*legal\, a. [Pref. il- not + legal: cf. F.
ill['e]gal.]
Not according to, or authorized by, law; specif., contrary
to, or in violation of, human law; unlawful; illicit; hence,
immoral; as, an illegal act; illegal trade; illegal love.
You spoke of jail time but I can't see how that's relevant. Actually
it's just FUD.
FUD, eh? You are quick to throw out such accusations with very
little research, I must say.
here are the facts: and people who sell debian CD's may
easily cross $1000 in a 6 month period.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving,
and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the
court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to
a sum of not more than $150,000.
(a) Criminal Infringement. \x{2014} Any person who infringes a
copyright willfully either \x{2014}
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic
means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or
phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total
retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United
States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction
or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be
sufficient to establish willful infringement.
(b) Forfeiture and Destruction. \x{2014} When any person is convicted
of any violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of
conviction shall, in addition to the penalty therein prescribed,
order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all
infringing copies or phonorecords and all implements, devices, or
equipment used in the manufacture of such infringing copies or
phonorecords.
(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. \x{2014} Any person who, with
fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or
words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or
who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for
public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that
such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than
$2,500.
(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. \x{2014} Any person who,
with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright
appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more
than $2,500.
(e) False Representation. \x{2014} Any person who knowingly makes a
false representation of a material fact in the application for
copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any
written statement filed in connection with the application, shall
be fined not more than $2,500.
(f) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:20:10AM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote: Thiemo Seufer wrote: As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of 'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of copyright infringement. So does Debian consider the interests of SCO then? They also claim copyright infringement. I'd hope so, in as much as Debian provides SCO (like all other users) with a high quality collection of Free software (No discrimination against fields of endeavour, remember :) Do you think so? If we would seriously concerned on SCO's ideas sarge should release with HURD. And there's always the possibility that SCO or someone else open a issue about it, too. -- Francesco P. Lovergine
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:21:27AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: For possible, that is, unsubstantioned license violation claims, yes. Distributing a GPL binary linked against code whose source is not available is a clear-cut violation of the terms of the GPL. Has anyone asked Linus what his feelings are regarding firmware? If he thinks it's acceptable (or possibly even the 'preferred form of modification') to have in Linux and that it's not violating the GPL then I don't think we have a problem. In these cases of ambiguity it makes sense to me to ask the copyright holder to clarify for us instead of assuming that they're violating their own license. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Stephen Frost wrote: Has anyone asked Linus what his feelings are regarding firmware? Good idea. And two interesting posts related tot his issue: (Wed, 10 Dec 2003 ) http://groups.google.fr/groups?selm=11gWH-4XN-1%40gated-at.bofh.itoe=UTF-8output=gplain And I think this argument is _especially_ strong for things like firmware etc, and I've been on record as saying that I think it's ok to upload standard firmware for a driver as long as you don't call it directly (ie it really lives on the hardware itself). (At this point I should probably point out that other people disagree, and there are people who feel strongly that the kernel cannot contain binary firmware. Whish is obviously part of the reason for having the firmware loader interfaces for drivers - adding an extra layer of separation). (Tue, 3 Feb 1998) http://groups.google.fr/groups?selm=199802032339.PAA11325%40dandelion.comoe=UTF-8output=gplain Linus and I discussed this at length regarding the Mylex/BusLogic FlashPoint SCSI Host Adapters. The FlashPoint SCCB Manager library code runs on the host CPU essentially in place of firmware running on an onboard processor as with the MultiMaster boards. Any software that runs on the host CPU is *required* to be in source form; binary is considered perfectly acceptable for firmware that is downloaded to a board, though obviously source for that would be nice too. One of the key conceptual differences here is that at least in theory, a driver in source form with downloaded binary firmware can execute on any hardware-compatible platform Linux runs on, or can be made to do so. The binary library module would have to be provided by your company for each Linux platform to be supported, and that does make a conceptual difference.
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
Stephen writes: In these cases of ambiguity it makes sense to me to ask the copyright holder to clarify for us instead of assuming that they're violating their own license. Linus is only the copyright owner of those portions of the kernel that he personally wrote. Each contributor owns the copyright on his contribution. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:36:20AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: [I think I really should have sent this originally to -legal... feel free to send it back over there if you think it's more appropriate.[1]] M-F-T (hopefully correctly) set. On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Michael Banck wrote: I would not consider firmware a 'derivative work' of the kernel, as it is usually (correct me if I'm wrong) developed completely independent from the driver and only included in the source for convenience for the hardware vendor (i.e. saving a bit of money for the ROM and being more flexible). The real question is: Is kernel source tarball (the final product) a derivative work of other kernel source + non-GPLed firmware or a mere aggregation of the two. If it is a derivative work, as I'm inclined to believe since it forms a whole product and so many people are complaining about removing that part, then the whole derivative work must be capable of being distributed under the GPL. Hmm, I know why I don't frequent -legal very often, this is all quite complicated :) Reading the GPL again, I guess the system exclusion does not apply either, right? There are only a few people really qualified to answer this question, and one of them is Eben Moglen. If there's still some doubt, he might be the person to ask... (or perhaps the [EMAIL PROTECTED] people, which is probably one and the same.)[2] Actually, I believe [EMAIL PROTECTED] is David 'novalis' Turner (a cool guy), and as I happen to know him, I might ask him about it. But if anybody else of you wants to go forth, be my guest, as you probably know much more about this issue than me. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
Thiemo Seufer said on Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:18:00AM +0200,: What exactly are these great benefits? I see diminished driver support and a lack of documentation, or alternatively non-free as a rather That is what I used to think, till I realised that the prospect of a large number of users switching to other hardware might persuade hardware vendors to be sensible and open up the specs. -- +~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://paivakil.port5.com +~+
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:04:13AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: Has anyone asked Linus what his feelings are regarding firmware? If he thinks it's acceptable (or possibly even the 'preferred form of modification') to have in Linux and that it's not violating the GPL then I don't think we have a problem. In these cases of ambiguity it makes sense to me to ask the copyright holder to clarify for us instead of assuming that they're violating their own license. I concur with the other responses: Linus is not the sole copyright holder. I'll also reiterate the other problem: even if we believe that the entire Linux kernel developer body agrees (which may be the case, though I doubt it), I'm sure there's a lot of code in the kernel pulled from other GPL projects, whose copyright holders aren't kernel developers at all. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I concur with the other responses: Linus is not the sole copyright holder. I'll also reiterate the other problem: even if we believe that the entire Linux kernel developer body agrees (which may be the case, though I doubt it), I'm sure there's a lot of code in the kernel pulled from other GPL projects, whose copyright holders aren't kernel developers at all. Certainly you can develop a case where it's not possible to get clarification on the license. That's not constructive or necessary imv. Clarification from Linus on the kernel's license is sufficient for me, and should be for Debian. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:42:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: Certainly you can develop a case where it's not possible to get clarification on the license. That's not constructive or necessary imv. If it's the case, then it's the case. Inconvenient does not imply false, whether we like it or not. I don't like that, so we should ignore it isn't a convincing argument. Clarification from Linus on the kernel's license is sufficient for me, and should be for Debian. If Linus is not legally capable of making this clarification for all of the code in question, then Debian must not pretend otherwise, and I see no evidence that he is. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
Lewis Jardine wrote: Thiemo Seufer wrote: As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of 'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of copyright infringement. So does Debian consider the interests of SCO then? They also claim copyright infringement. I'd hope so, in as much as Debian provides SCO (like all other users) with a high quality collection of Free software (No discrimination against fields of endeavour, remember :) So we will stop to distribute Linux because of their claims? If not, why do we take some hypothetically existing kernel developer more serious than SCO, who publicly threatened to sue everyone? [snip] Linking means to bind some object files together. Those firmwares aren't distributed as object files. Which relies on the rather weak legal theory that compiled in firmware is part of a derived work, while the same firmware in a ramdisk image (or even a CD image) suddenly constitutes a collection of works. It can be argued under the new social contract amendments that many of these blobs are non-free, and have to go, whether or not they can be included in the kernel image without violating the GPL. In its broadest interpretation it allows to exclude enough from Debian to render the remains useless. If nothing else, it would make the kernel image with the firmwares and the kernel image without the firmwares identical; loading these blobs in at run-time would mean that kernel-blobs-non_free could be packaged separately, saving the pain of having to maintain kernel-image and kernel-image-non_free. Maintaining a bunch of firmware .(u)debs and keeping them in sync with their appropriate kernel version is surely more effort that two kernel packages. a delayed Sarge would be annoying, but the products that are necessary for an 'anally-free' Sarge would be of great benefit to users of both Debian, and Free Software in general. What exactly are these great benefits? I see diminished driver support and a lack of documentation, or alternatively non-free as a rather mandatory part of a Debian installation. Ah. I was seeing clean-roomed/relicensed firmwares, rewritten, Free documentation, etc. I assumed that the reason for the delay was due to reverse-engineering, documentation, and re-licensing. Best case, I was envisaging a back-down by the FSF over the GFDL, and the reintroduction of much of the documentation, under a Free license. Surely it can't take nine months just to take out the stuff that's been declared non-free, and not replace it at all? Nine months for the reverse engineering of a vast and increasing array of firmwares without hardware documentation is an excessively optimistic estimate. It may work for some binary drivers (which aren't the matter here), but rewriting some firmware for an undocumented and unknown system can't be done with reasonable effort. And this still doesn't count the fight if a jpeg or some font descriptions can be source. I'm not touching that one with a 60 foot pole. Clause four of (even the unamended) social contract, in my opinion, suggests that later is better than less free, and thus the amendment was The Right Thing, even though it may delay Sarge. In my opinion, invoking the Social Contract is Debian's version of Godwin's Law. I'd say that it beats Godwin's Law, as the Social Contract is (at least supposed to be :) relevant to the discussion at hand. Well, to choose a different wording: If somebody has to resort to citing from some holy book, then you know there aren't any arguments left. Thiemo
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:42:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: Certainly you can develop a case where it's not possible to get clarification on the license. That's not constructive or necessary imv. If it's the case, then it's the case. Inconvenient does not imply false, whether we like it or not. I don't like that, so we should ignore it isn't a convincing argument. If we make a reasonable attempt to get clarification on the license the kernel is distributed under from the *source* of the kernel tarballs that we use then that should mitigate the risk. No, it won't remove all risk like getting agreeing clarification from everyone but that's not reasonable to do in this case as you pointed out. Clarification from Linus on the kernel's license is sufficient for me, and should be for Debian. If Linus is not legally capable of making this clarification for all of the code in question, then Debian must not pretend otherwise, and I see no evidence that he is. Linus is where we receive the source from, is the originator of the kernel, originally decided the license it was going to be under, and may very well have the largest percentage of direct copyright in the work. It's clear, to me at least, that his interpretation has some weight. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:34:40PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: If we make a reasonable attempt to get clarification on the license the kernel is distributed under from the *source* of the kernel tarballs that we use then that should mitigate the risk. No, it won't remove all risk like getting agreeing clarification from everyone but that's not reasonable to do in this case as you pointed out. We can't reasonably get permission to do this does *not* mean therefore let's just assume we have it. Debian makes a strong effort not to be that sloppy and careless with licensing. Linus is where we receive the source from, is the originator of the kernel, originally decided the license it was going to be under, and may very well have the largest percentage of direct copyright in the work. It's clear, to me at least, that his interpretation has some weight. It's clear to me that it doesn't have the weight of copyright holder, if any GPL code owned by a third party has been integrated into the kernel by kernel developers. Just to be clear on the situation I'm considering: I write a piece of code to sort numbers in an interesting way, use this code in a game I'm writing, and place it under the GPL. John, a kernel developer, finds that this implementation is ideal for sorting TCP packets, and so he takes it, adjusts it a little to suit kernel use, and sends it off to Linus, who puts it in the kernel. I believe this is a normal, day-to-day scenario in free software; it's something the GPL is designed to encourage strongly. (I'm not prepared to start poking through kernel source to find examples of this, due to time constraints and lack of motivation to trudge through foreign code, but it seems self-evident to me that this happens.) Neither John, Linus, nor the kernel developer body as a whole have the right to be clarifying the license of my code. If I had personally sent it off to Linus to be included, it might be different, but I, the copyright holder, never interacted with any of those people. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:51:32PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: We're making a strong effort to paint ourselves into a corner we can't get out of. We *need* a clarification. This assumption of the worst possible isn't acceptable or even reasonable. Given that we need a clarification the best we can do is get it from Linus. As I said, I don't accept this line of reasoning; if the best we can do to satisfy legal requirements is not enough, then it's not enough. We're arguing in circles, now, so unless somebody else has something to add, let's just disagree here. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:47:17AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: Do we? WRT kernel firmware, the driver authors seem to see it as a collection of works (with the firmware being one part), and at least I tend to prefer the author's opinion over third-party interpretations. The author's opinion may not be completely relevant when there are hundreds of authors. Remember, the drivers are being linked to all other code in the kernel, and the license of that code (usually also GPL) must be followed. I don't know if there's any legal consensus on this among kernel developers (not being one myself). -- Glenn Maynard
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
[I'm not subcribed to -legal] Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:47:17AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: Do we? WRT kernel firmware, the driver authors seem to see it as a collection of works (with the firmware being one part), and at least I tend to prefer the author's opinion over third-party interpretations. The author's opinion may not be completely relevant when there are hundreds of authors. Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors of kernel stuff. Remember, the drivers are being linked to all other code in the kernel, and the license of that code (usually also GPL) must be followed. I don't know if there's any legal consensus on this among kernel developers (not being one myself). From what I gathered, the vast majority of kernel developers sees it as not-a-problem, and none is interested in suing his fellow developers. (Doing so may well result in the removal of that developer's contributions, as that would minimize the amount of damage.) Thiemo
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors of kernel stuff. Indeed: it's by people who are concerned about violating the licensing terms of those who are. From what I gathered, the vast majority of kernel developers sees it as not-a-problem, and none is interested in suing his fellow developers. (Doing so may well result in the removal of that developer's contributions, as that would minimize the amount of damage.) That might be of little consolation to the people being sued for copyright infringement. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
[I'm not subscribed to -legal] Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors of kernel stuff. Indeed: it's by people who are concerned about violating the licensing terms of those who are. Exactly. An unrelated third party, whose stance doesn't matter for the issue. From what I gathered, the vast majority of kernel developers sees it as not-a-problem, and none is interested in suing his fellow developers. (Doing so may well result in the removal of that developer's contributions, as that would minimize the amount of damage.) That might be of little consolation to the people being sued for copyright infringement. The only one who can sue is a copyright holder, and he'll first have to sue the offender successfully over the alleged GPL violation. The potentially affected people don't seem to be overly concerned about that prospect. Thiemo
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:45:37AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: An unrelated third party, whose stance doesn't matter for the issue. How is Debian unrelated? They're risking violating the GPL, and putting themselves at legal risk. This isn't a matter of a stance; this is a matter of trying to determine if we're violating the GPL. The only one who can sue is a copyright holder, and he'll first have to sue the offender successfully over the alleged GPL violation. The potentially affected people don't seem to be overly concerned about that prospect. Uh, but Debian (and everyone else distributing Debian) *is* the offender, being the ones potentially violating the GPL by distributing GPL-licensed software without complete source. (Again, I'm not certain whether there's a GPL problem here or not, but the answer is certainly relevant to Debian.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
Thiemo Seufer wrote: [I'm not subscribed to -legal] Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors of kernel stuff. Indeed: it's by people who are concerned about violating the licensing terms of those who are. Exactly. An unrelated third party, whose stance doesn't matter for the issue. As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of 'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of copyright infringement. If a fully working, tested solution to load non-free firmware from userland into the kernel (thus avoiding the linking problem) fell from the sky tomorrow, I suspect very few people would suggest that it was A Bad Thing, and that the kernel was better when it had potentially dubious, non-free blobs in it. In my opinion, the problem isn't the principle, merely the practicality: a delayed Sarge would be annoying, but the products that are necessary for an 'anally-free' Sarge would be of great benefit to users of both Debian, and Free Software in general. Clause four of (even the unamended) social contract, in my opinion, suggests that later is better than less free, and thus the amendment was The Right Thing, even though it may delay Sarge. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200403/msg00964.html (emphasis mine) 4. *Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software* *We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities.* We will support the needs of our users for operation in many different kinds of computing environment. We won't object to commercial software that is intended to run on Debian systems, and we'll allow others to create value-added distributions containing both Debian and commercial software, without any fee from us. To support these goals, we will provide an integrated system of high-quality, *100% free software, with no legal restrictions that would prevent these kinds of use*. -- Lewis Jardine IANAL IANADD
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:45:37AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: An unrelated third party, whose stance doesn't matter for the issue. How is Debian unrelated? They're risking violating the GPL, and putting themselves at legal risk. If you want to avoid every imaginable legal risk, you have to shut down Debian immediately. Btw, I'm pretty sure Debian violates every second software patent. This isn't a matter of a stance; this is a matter of trying to determine if we're violating the GPL. The hypothetical suing copyright holder says yes, the driver author says no. Both claims aren't easily dismissable. So there's no way to determine this beforehand. The only one who can sue is a copyright holder, and he'll first have to sue the offender successfully over the alleged GPL violation. The potentially affected people don't seem to be overly concerned about that prospect. Uh, but Debian (and everyone else distributing Debian) *is* the offender, being the ones potentially violating the GPL by distributing GPL-licensed software without complete source. The hypothetical suing copyright holder will have to prove the violation against the driver author, or at least get some court order, before he can go after distributors. At least that's how things are handled by german Urheberrecht, it seems to be handled similiar in the US WRT. (Standard Disclaimer: IANAL) (Again, I'm not certain whether there's a GPL problem here or not, but the answer is certainly relevant to Debian.) The answer is given by a court, and that's the moment it becomes relevant for Debian. Thiemo
Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:07:55AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: If you want to avoid every imaginable legal risk, you have to shut down Debian immediately. Your arguments could be used to dismiss *any* question about possible license violation. -- Glenn Maynard
