Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:47:26AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: No source code is provided for the DSP binaries. (N.B., past discussions of this issue have reached the conclusion that such software can nevertheless be distributed in main.) You're talking about the files in mwavem-1.0.4/src/dsp, right? Interestingly enough, those files are in RIFF format. It's a structured multimedia container format. Embedded somewhere in the header of v90.dsp is the string MICROCODE SOURCE MATERIALS. MWAVE MICROCODE. (C) COPYRIGHT IBM CORP. 1997. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. It also looks like there's full symbols. Perhaps these files are the source code, when opened with some proprietary dsp firmware editor we don't have? Has anyone asked IBM yet? -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 16:03, Brian Ristuccia wrote: You're talking about the files in mwavem-1.0.4/src/dsp, right? Yes. Interestingly enough, those files are in RIFF format. It's a structured multimedia container format. Interesting. Embedded somewhere in the header of v90.dsp is the string MICROCODE SOURCE MATERIALS. MWAVE MICROCODE. (C) COPYRIGHT IBM CORP. 1997. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. It also looks like there's full symbols. Perhaps these files are the source code, when opened with some proprietary dsp firmware editor we don't have? Possibly; but I suspect that these files contain binaries, not source code. Has anyone asked IBM yet? I wrote once got no reply. I have just written again to the guys who ported the driver to Linux. -- Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 08:00:08PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: That isn't ignoring the DFSG, it's just using the GPL's definition of Source: the preferred form for modification. If I use the Gimp to make an image and delete the intermediate xcf files, the only remaining source forms are the raw inputs and the output. It's important to retain a proper attitude towards this sort of decision: the intent of the humans involves really matters. Whether they really had the source and now don't, and why that is, matters a great deal. It's a very blurry line. We can interpret DFSG#2 to mean the form closest to source that still exists if we want, but it's extremely questionable to try to interpret preferred form for modification as preferred form for modification, or any form, no matter how unreasonable it is to edit, if the preferred form for modification has been lost. In any case, I don't think anyone has actually claimed that IBM has lost the source. Asking them for it is probably the best thing to do next. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
it's extremely questionable to try to interpret preferred form for modification as preferred form for modification, or any form, no matter how unreasonable it is to edit, if the preferred form for modification has been lost. The preferred form for modification is not the form we'd like to edit. I've got an Algol68 compiler written in Fortran 66 and JCL, which is not my preferred form for modification, but I don't think anyone would argue that I don't have the source code, even though there theoretically exists a semantically identical compiler written in Ada and Make. Even though there exists in theory a semantically identical assembler or C source file, if only the binary exists in reality, that is the preferred form of modification. In some cases of ROMs, like those for early gaming systems, that form is frequently modified. Perhaps there exists a line between 10K of binary and 10M of binary where it goes from the preferred form of modification to unmodifiable (in a practical sense), but there are many cases of source code in assembler or C where the source code is unmodifiable (in a practical sense). -- __ Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search http://corp.mail.com/careers
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
On 2003-09-26, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Back to the DSP binaries: I remember that at one point there were DSP binaries included in the Linux kernel source. Is that still the case? AFAIK, this is one good reason that Debian does not distribute pristine kernel sources: the various binaries have been removed from the upstream kernel sources before packaging. Peace, Dylan
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
Glenn Maynard said: We can interpret DFSG#2 to mean the form closest to source that still exists if we want, but it's extremely questionable to try to interpret preferred form for modification as preferred form for modification, or any form, no matter how unreasonable it is to edit, if the preferred form for modification has been lost. I interpret it as prefered form for modification, out of those forms which exist. (I think it may actually be specifically the preferred form for modification of the licensor, or of the distributor. This would be relevant in cases where there is some argument about which of several existing forms is the preferred form.) I would reject GPL'ed items where the authors deliberately destroyed all copies of their original source files not because preferred form for modifcation was not available -- but rather because the authors would clearly be trying to evade the intent of the GPL using a technicality, and that indicates unreliable authors acting in bad faith, who I wouldn't want to touch with a ten-foot pole. The actual case where machine-code-as-source has come is in ROMs for old games where the source code was lost many years ago, but where it's still useful and feasible to edit the ROM images. But this discussion is really not relevant to the issue at hand, because In any case, I don't think anyone has actually claimed that IBM has lost the source. Asking them for it is probably the best thing to do next. Absolutely. --Nathanael
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:25:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: If it's licensed under the GPL, and no source is provided, then it can not be distributed at all, not even in non-free, unless there never was source to begin with. (I assume this isn't the case, as you said no source code is provided, not no source code exists.) We should allow it if source code once existed but no longer exists (all the copies of the source code were wiped accidentally at some time in the past). So it's okay to ignore the DFSG in this case? Why can't we do that for, say, GFDL manuals?
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 26 September 2003 08:48, Florian Weimer wrote: On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:25:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: If it's licensed under the GPL, and no source is provided, then it can not be distributed at all, not even in non-free, unless there never was source to begin with. (I assume this isn't the case, as you said no source code is provided, not no source code exists.) We should allow it if source code once existed but no longer exists (all the copies of the source code were wiped accidentally at some time in the past). So it's okay to ignore the DFSG in this case? Hardly. The argument being made is, I believe, that the binary has by now become all that is left, and might thus be the preferred form of modification. Only if that is true, it could be legally redistributed under the GPL anyway. I would assume the preferred form of modification would also meet the source code requirement of the DFSG. Regards Jan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/dB2i4cR0MEP0sUQRAoDpAKDUZLFIcn8k+i4ir67X6TobVXSNpQCcCXP1 sVLZbgx9f9rTxloYN0zdxjs= =oHis -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:25:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: If it's licensed under the GPL, and no source is provided, then it can not be distributed at all, not even in non-free, unless there never was source to begin with. (I assume this isn't the case, as you said no source code is provided, not no source code exists.) We should allow it if source code once existed but no longer exists (all the copies of the source code were wiped accidentally at some time in the past). So it's okay to ignore the DFSG in this case? That isn't ignoring the DFSG, it's just using the GPL's definition of Source: the preferred form for modification. If I use the Gimp to make an image and delete the intermediate xcf files, the only remaining source forms are the raw inputs and the output. It's important to retain a proper attitude towards this sort of decision: the intent of the humans involves really matters. Whether they really had the source and now don't, and why that is, matters a great deal. It's a very blurry line. Why can't we do that for, say, GFDL manuals? Lack of source is not an issue with the GFDL, non-modifiability is one of several. -Brian
Re: Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:25:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: We should allow it if source code once existed but no longer exists (all the copies of the source code were wiped accidentally at some time in the past). (This has happened with old games and firmware fairly often, and the conclusion has been that the binary is now the only meaningful 'source', because it's the preferred form for modification, out of those forms which exist.) This came up recently. The GPL does not say preferred form for modification out of those forms that still exist or of those forms that are available. It says preferred form for modification. If the binaries were created as binaries, then they're source; but if they were assembled in some way, then the only way to satisfy the GPL is with that source. If it's not available, the GPL can't be satisfied, regardless of the reason the source isn't available. That doesn't necessarily mean those binaries can't pass the DFSG if there's an alternative license for them: the interpretation of DFSG#2 can easily be different than that of the GPL's preferred form for modification. If there was an eg. BSD-ish license on them, then Debian can freely interpret DFSG#2's source to include binaries if no other source is available. We just can't interpret the GPL that way. But if IBM *has* any source code for this, it should be distributing it. Someone who cares about the driver should contact IBM about this. Full agreement. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: We should allow it if source code once existed but no longer exists (all the copies of the source code were wiped accidentally at some time in the past). So it's okay to ignore the DFSG in this case? It's not ignoring the DFSG; it's interpreting source code to mean the preferred form for modification, as in the GPL, and it's interpreting that to mean of the forms that are still extant. Back to the DSP binaries: I remember that at one point there were DSP binaries included in the Linux kernel source. Is that still the case? I think my opinion was that the DSP binaries in the kernel source are not DFSG-free, because someone still has the source, but they are not a GPL violation because they are not part of the kernel despite being distributed with it for good technical reasons. Look at the right-justification of this e-mail! An accident, I assure you ...
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:25:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: We should allow it if source code once existed but no longer exists (all the copies of the source code were wiped accidentally at some time in the past). So it's okay to ignore the DFSG in this case? The definition of source code in the GPL is the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it, and this definition is generally accepted by Debian developers. For many ROMs and older computer programs, people can and do frequently make changes by editing the binary. There are probably more people who can change a Nintendo ROM by binary hacking then who could change GNAT by editing source code. If this is all we have, and people are working at this level, I see no reason to exclude it. Why can't we do that for, say, GFDL manuals? If we were talking in a resturant, I might throw my drink at you. Those threads are a cesspool that are basically devoid of new argument; there's no need to drag this thread in there. If you want to continue an eternal flamewar, then go ahead, but at least let other discussions go in in debian-legal. -- __ Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search http://corp.mail.com/careers
Re: Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
Glenn Maynard wrote: On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:47:26AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarball that it says is licensed under the GPL. http://oss.software.ibm.com/acpmodem/ No source code is provided for the DSP binaries. (N.B., past discussions of this issue have reached the conclusion that such software can nevertheless be distributed in main.) If it's licensed under the GPL, and no source is provided, then it can not be distributed at all, not even in non-free, unless there never was source to begin with. (I assume this isn't the case, as you said no source code is provided, not no source code exists.) We should allow it if source code once existed but no longer exists (all the copies of the source code were wiped accidentally at some time in the past). (This has happened with old games and firmware fairly often, and the conclusion has been that the binary is now the only meaningful 'source', because it's the preferred form for modification, out of those forms which exist.) But if IBM *has* any source code for this, it should be distributing it. Someone who cares about the driver should contact IBM about this.
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:56:27AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le lun 22/09/2003 ? 09:46, Glenn Maynard a ?crit : On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:47:26AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarball that it says is licensed under the GPL. http://oss.software.ibm.com/acpmodem/ No source code is provided for the DSP binaries. (N.B., past discussions of this issue have reached the conclusion that such software can nevertheless be distributed in main.) If it's licensed under the GPL, and no source is provided, then it can not be distributed at all, not even in non-free, unless there never was source to begin with. (I assume this isn't the case, as you said no source code is provided, not no source code exists.) If the binaries were entirely written using assembly code, the binary here equates the source. assembly != machine language. If it's written in assembly, the source is still assembly, not a binary (despite assembly sometimes /appearing/ to be binary gibberish :). It depends. If there a mutual one-to-one correspondence between assembler line and DSP processor command it is, mainly, a differences in format. You may disassemble binary and pretends that this is a source code.
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
Le lun 22/09/2003 à 16:04, Sam Hocevar a écrit : On Mon, Sep 22, 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote: If the binaries were entirely written using assembly code, the binary here equates the source. This is very rarely true. Even assembly code has variable and function names, comments and macros. A disassembler output is certainly not the preferred form for modification in most cases. Well, *if* it is the case, then. It seems to be much less common than what I first thought. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
It depends. If there a mutual one-to-one correspondence between assembler line and DSP processor command it is, mainly, a differences in format. Most (almost all?) non-trivial assembly code contains things like variable names and comments.
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 02:47 US/Eastern, Thomas Hood wrote: IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarball that it says is licensed under the GPL. http://oss.software.ibm.com/acpmodem/ No source code is provided for the DSP binaries. What about DFSG 2?
License requirements for DSP binaries?
The mwavem package includes binaries for the Mwave(tm) digital signal processor (DSP) chip found on some ThinkPad(tm). With the binaries installed the Mwave implements a modem. IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarball that it says is licensed under the GPL. http://oss.software.ibm.com/acpmodem/ No source code is provided for the DSP binaries. (N.B., past discussions of this issue have reached the conclusion that such software can nevertheless be distributed in main.) Is the statement that the GPL covers the binaries good enough for Debian, or should we ask IBM for a separate license for the DSP files? -- Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:47:26AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarball that it says is licensed under the GPL. http://oss.software.ibm.com/acpmodem/ No source code is provided for the DSP binaries. (N.B., past discussions of this issue have reached the conclusion that such software can nevertheless be distributed in main.) If it's licensed under the GPL, and no source is provided, then it can not be distributed at all, not even in non-free, unless there never was source to begin with. (I assume this isn't the case, as you said no source code is provided, not no source code exists.) A link to past discussions would be useful, to avoid repeating them. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
Le lun 22/09/2003 à 09:46, Glenn Maynard a écrit : On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:47:26AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarball that it says is licensed under the GPL. http://oss.software.ibm.com/acpmodem/ No source code is provided for the DSP binaries. (N.B., past discussions of this issue have reached the conclusion that such software can nevertheless be distributed in main.) If it's licensed under the GPL, and no source is provided, then it can not be distributed at all, not even in non-free, unless there never was source to begin with. (I assume this isn't the case, as you said no source code is provided, not no source code exists.) If the binaries were entirely written using assembly code, the binary here equates the source. But if they were written using a higher-level language, it makes them more hardly suitable for main. However, if modifying them is achievable and potentially useful, they could be considered the same as bitmap pictures when the layered source is missing. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:56:27AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: If the binaries were entirely written using assembly code, the binary here equates the source. You really mean machine code here, right? Because I would appreciate the .s source files if someone wrote it in assembler. Simon
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote: If the binaries were entirely written using assembly code, the binary here equates the source. This is very rarely true. Even assembly code has variable and function names, comments and macros. A disassembler output is certainly not the preferred form for modification in most cases. Regards, -- Sam.
