Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 09:34:44AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mercredi 06 avril 2005 à 02:10 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit : It merely depends on the definition of aggregation. I'd say that two works that are only aggregated can be easily distinguished and separated. This is not the case for a binary kernel module, from which you cannot easily extract the firmware and code parts. Josselin, please read the thread i linked to in debian-legal, and as nobody really gave reason to oppose it, i believe we have consensus that those firmware blobs constitute mere agregation, provided they are clearly identified and properly licenced, which they are not always. The fact that nobody cared to answer you shouldn't be considered as any kind of approval for your sayings. There were a couple of replies, but if you are going to argue this, please read the analysis i made, and reply to it. Read in particular : http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00288.html Which contains a more formal analysis from Humberto Massa. So, given that this thread together with the GPLed firmware flasher thread got a respectable amount of replies, i believe we can claim consensus, and this is something the debian-kernel team has been acting upon, and i believe even aknowledged by the release managers and ftp-masters. If you have strong evidence that this is not the case, it would really have been nice to comment on it before the kernel team (not only me which you may dislike for past dealings or whatever) waste effort on something which is wrong in the first place, and i commend you to participate in the above thread asap, voicing your concerns (or remain silent forever thereafter :). Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sql-ledger may belong in non-free
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 05:33:00AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way, this text seems to be gone. (There are still some bogus trademark claims on that page--IANAL, but I doubt a trademark allows them to prevent people from using sql-ledger in domain names as long as the use isn't confusing--but they probably don't affect the software, or at least the name could be removed if it became a problem.) If Intel can [1], why not these guys? [1] http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/54177 The rules vary depending on the relevant TLD, but generally speaking, rich people are allowed to dicatate terms to non-rich people about which domains they can use. There are some exceptions, notably within some of the per-country domains. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: kernel firmware status
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 06:06:34PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: I created a wiki page that contains a list of all drivers that are currently considered undistributable by Debian, the available license information we have for them, and various other comments: http://wiki.debian.net/?KernelFirmwareLicensing I would appreciate feedback from d-l about the various firmware blobs that *do* contain licensing. Remember that the goal is to distribute the firmware in non-free, embedded in the drivers themselves; however, separate from the main kernel tree. Picking on a few at random: Quoth the page: Look at the source files yourself to understand any licensing restrictions on their use. Alteon's license may be summarised like this: you may share and develop the firmware, but it is only for use with Alteon NIC products. That summary is obviously bogus because you can't do that in a license. I looked at the source files, and I did not find any license at all. Everything says All rights reserved on it. So I think this is just yet another entirely unlicensed firmware bundle - ironically, it's one which *does* include source written in C, so there is absolutely no chance anybody could argue that the hex dump is source. * This firmware is for the Emagic EMI 2|6 Audio Interface * * The firmware contained herein is Copyright (c) 1999-2002 Emagic * as an unpublished work. This notice does not imply unrestricted * or public access to this firmware which is a trade secret of Emagic, * and which may not be reproduced, used, sold or transferred to * any third party without Emagic's written consent. All Rights Reserved. That's clearly nonsense. It's not unpublished or a trade secret if it's published in the kernel. Anyway, you need written permission to distribute it at all. However, is it the same emagic as here? http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/jul/01emagic.html If so, it might be worth asking Apple. They'll probably either grant a license for it or sue everybody who's been distributing it. The firmware contained herein as keyspan_*.h is Copyright (C) 1999-2001 Keyspan, A division of InnoSys Incorporated (Keyspan) as an unpublished work. This notice does not imply unrestricted or public access to the source code from which this firmware image is derived. Except as noted below this firmware image may not be reproduced, used, sold or transferred to any third party without Keyspan's prior written consent. All Rights Reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware image as part of a Linux or other Open Source operating system kernel in text or binary form as required. This firmware may not be modified and may only be used with Keyspan hardware. Distribution and/or Modification of the keyspan.c driver which includes this firmware, in whole or in part, requires the inclusion of this statement. Finally, one with a real license. It's obviously non-free, but I see no reason why it can't be distributed in non-free, with the usual provisos about proprietary drivers being entirely unsupportable. A few of these are BSD-licensed binaries; those are indeed distributable, although of course they're proprietary. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Concerns about works created by the US government
[Please Cc: me when replying] Hello, Generally for free software (and most other purposes) it seems that works created by the US government are usually considered (sometimes effectively) to be in the public domain. I however have some concerns about this. The relevant US law says (title 17, chapter 1, § 105): Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. This certainly seems to make the works effectively PD in the US; however it almost seems as if that was carefully worded to _not_ place works in the PD, only to make the US government unable to enforce their copyright under the US law. What I think it does NOT do is forbid the US government from enforcing their copyright in any foreign jurisdiction. I think this is just about the only imaginable reason why the title does not say Any work of the US government is public domain instead. I think that for an international project this might be a problem, at least in theory. I agree that the Debian project possibly cannot take into account all laws in all countries; however I think this is potentially a major issue since it probably would affect any other country under the Berne convention. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though, and that's why I'm writing here :) Sami signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Concerns about works created by the US government
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 07:55 am, Sami Liedes wrote: The relevant US law says (title 17, chapter 1, § 105): Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. This certainly seems to make the works effectively PD in the US; however it almost seems as if that was carefully worded to _not_ place works in the PD, only to make the US government unable to enforce their copyright under the US law. The language regarding the US holding a transferred copyright is only applicable when the copyright is created by a non-governmental actor and then transferred to the United States government. Under those conditions the US holds a valid, enforceable copyright that it can do whatever it wants with. Probably useful for when the government takes over the assets of a company that has defaulted on its taxes (there is a great case where the U.S. Government ran a brothel in Las Vegas when it failed to pay its taxes). What I think it does NOT do is forbid the US government from enforcing their copyright in any foreign jurisdiction. I think this is just about the only imaginable reason why the title does not say Any work of the US government is public domain instead. Well, now that's a very interesting argument. It is those foreign jurisdictions that are granting the copyright and unless those jurisdictions say that national governments cannot claim a copyright, the U.S. certain has one in those countries. The law, as you rightly point out, only denies protection under the particular Title... not all copyright statutes. A U.S. law saying that the executive is not to enforce a right granted by another country would be sort of strange, separation of powers wise... but conceivably the only way to ensure the U.S. doesn't enforce those rights. All that being said, you are quite corrent that the purpose of the prohibition is to ensure that U.S. Citizens have free access to government works. Free foreign access to those works is entirely coincidental and probably not part of the policy argument for the statute. On a related note... I keep hearing the public domain as this positive state where people put their works. This is not the case under U.S. law, and I would venture to guess it is the same elsewhere. Public Domain is a negative state that only exists where there is an absence of a positive copyright. One does not put their rights in the public domain, one waves their copyright. You're not going to find language that says, authors doing X put their works in the public domain... rather, its going to be phrase, you only have a copyright if you do X, or you will lose your copyright if you fail to do Y. Its an important semantic difference that is useful when you are trying to decipher the law. I think that for an international project this might be a problem, at least in theory. I agree that the Debian project possibly cannot take into account all laws in all countries; however I think this is potentially a major issue since it probably would affect any other country under the Berne convention. Yeah, I agree. If you don't have a license from the U.S. Government saying you can use this work in a foreign country, I would stay away from it if you want to keep legit... this goes for both close and open source projects. But as a practical matter, I don't believe the U.S. Government really create all that much copyrightable work these days. Its far more common that it gives cash to a group with the right to a license to that work. But that's just my impression and I have no facts to back up the claim :) -Sean -- Sean Kellogg 2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org] So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: Concerns about works created by the US government
* Sami Liedes: This certainly seems to make the works effectively PD in the US; however it almost seems as if that was carefully worded to _not_ place works in the PD, only to make the US government unable to enforce their copyright under the US law. AFAIK, this is indeed the standard interpretation: | The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government | works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works | abroad. Works of the governments of most other countries are | copyrighted. There are no valid policy reasons for denying such | protection to United States Government works in foreign countries, or | for precluding the Government from making licenses for the use of its | works abroad. http://www.title17.com/contentLegMat/houseReport/chpt01/sec105.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel firmware status
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:56:56 -0300, Humberto Massa wrote: Andrew Suffield wrote: [...] The firmware contained herein as keyspan_*.h is ... Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware image as part of a Linux or other Open Source operating system kernel in text or binary form as required. ... This firmware may not be modified and may only be used with Keyspan hardware. Distribution and/or Modification of the keyspan.c driver which includes this firmware, in whole or in part, requires the inclusion of this statement. Finally, one with a real license. It's obviously non-free, but I see no reason why it can't be distributed in non-free, with the usual provisos about proprietary drivers being entirely unsupportable. As I said before, it seems to me that is not distributable /unless/ within a whole copy of the kernel; ie neither in a kernel-modules-nonfree nor in a keyspan-module-nonfree packages. Hm, I'm not sure I agree with that. It doesn't say it requires a *complete* kernel; nor does it say it requires Linux specifically. We're distributing the kernel in parts; kernel-source-nonfree is definitely part of an open source kernel (albeit just drivers for hardware). I could see this argued both ways. Of course, I can contact them and ask them to modify the license as well. This falls in line w/ Sven's request[0] for an example license to propose to firmware copyright holders that will satisfy the requirements of the kernel, and our non-free distribution. Obviously, something like the BSD license is doable, but the firmware authors seem to want to ensure that the firmware remain unmodified, and/or only be used with their specific hardware. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/04/msg00152.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Concerns about works created by the US government
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But as a practical matter, I don't believe the U.S. Government really create all that much copyrightable work these days. I find the CIA World Factbook and much of the data (including images) released by NASA quite valuable. Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Llu, 2005-04-04 at 21:47, Jeff Garzik wrote: Bluntly, Debian is being a pain in the ass ;-) There will always be non-free firmware to deal with, for key hardware. Firmware being seperate does make a lot of sense. It isn't going away but it doesn't generally belong in kernel now we have initrd and firmware loaders. Alan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
