Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> > That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a > > collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If > > there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering > > the parts. The creation of works that "can be linked together" > > is not protected by copyright: the literary analogy was to > > "create a robot short story". Such a story could go into an > > anthology called (duh) "Robot Short Stories", but its > > licensing is independent of every other robot short story in > > the world -- except those it is a derivative work of. On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:44:10AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > That's fine then, if you want to define derivative work in this > way, then I can configure, compile, and link the Linux kernel without > permission of the copyright holder under first sale (since no derivative > work is created). I can write a program that uses a library, compile > my program, and link it to the library, again without creating a > derivative work. It's quite true that linking does not create a derivative work. However, it might be the case that a derivative work had already been created. Only when you have legally obtained copies of a work are you entitled to retain those copies. Technical details (such as downloading the work in pieces, from different sites, perhaps using bittorrent, or perhaps using ftp, or perhaps using other protocols) don't make any more difference [either positively or negatively] than linking does. > Okay. This gets to the same result that I get to, which is that > you can do all the things you want to do without permission from > the copyright holder under first sale. Since this is not creating a > derivative work, no special permission is needed. Sure. Of course this doesn't apply when you got the copy from someone who wasn't entitled to give it to you. For example, if I'm distributing some program derived from a GPLed program and I have no intention of providing source for the derived form, I'm at fault, and depending on details you might or might not have a license to the derivative I authored. On the other hand, the GPL itself has an explicit exception for this case, the GPLed content is legal for other people to use even if the person distributing it had lost their copyright grant. But if we're talking about linking and derived works, you could easily be using derived code which is not GPLed. The GPL can't offer you any rights to that code, because someone else owns the copyright. -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
David Schwartz wrote:
>>That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
>>collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology.
>>If there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and
>>ordering the parts. The creation of works that "can be
>>linked together" is not protected by copyright: the literary
>>analogy was to "create a robot short story". Such a story
>>could go into an anthology called (duh) "Robot Short
>>Stories", but its licensing is independent of every other
>>robot short story in the world -- except those it is a
>>derivative work of.
>
>
>That's fine then, if you want to define derivative
>work in this way, then I can configure, compile, and link the
Not me -- copyright law defines derivative works in this way.
>Linux kernel without permission of the copyright holder under
>first sale (since no derivative work is created). I can
>write a program that uses a library, compile my program, and
>link it to the library, again without creating a derivative
>work.
I already conceded on this.
(...)
>
>Read the quote above.
?! I did not understand which quote, or which part. But I
suspect you're talking about lu-12.html (below), for which
just now you pointed me to.
>>Second: you did not provide a concrete pointer to one of
>>Eben Moglen's posts, for instance, saying that modification
>>is not covered by the GPL. Me, OTOH, showed you that the
>>TEXT of the GPL says it covers modifications.
>
>
>Read the quote. For about the fourth time in this
>thread, here's the cite:
>http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html "The
>license does not require anyone to accept it in order to
>acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify
>GPL'd software."
This is the first time you gave me an URL. I'll look into it.
(...)
>
>
>I never said that the FSF says the GPL does not cover
>modifications, I said it doesn't cover ordinary use. That
>means it doesn't cover modifications when those modifications
>are made in the course of ordinary use.
Insofar, you did not show me an example of need to create a
derivative work in the course of the ordinary use.
(...)
>Okay. So you get to the same place I get by a
>different route. One of the strange things I've noticed is
>nearly all cases, you get the same result whether you think
>the final work is a derivative work or not.
>
(...)
Now some things interesting:
>I don't think courts seem to agree with this, but I
>can only find cases where the result really would have been
>the same whether or not the work was derivative. For example,
>one case inolved a company that stole test questions from
>another company. The courts ruled that the test with some of
>the "borrowed" questions was a derivative work, even though
>there's no special "integration" of the questions. But they
>could perfectly well have reached the same conclusion without
>the "derivative work" argument.
>
>There are court cases on point that definitely
>disagree with you, for example Mirage Editions, Inv. v.
>Albuquerque ART (cutting a picture out of a book creates a
>derivative work). Also National Football League v. TVRadio
>Now (embedding someone else's broadcast with your
>advertisements through an automated process creates a
>derivative work).
The embedding was not made by a fully automated process, was
it? Didn't someone had to create the advertisements, with the
purpose to be presented embedded in the broadcast? I suspect
-- without looking at the case files at the moment -- that
there was the creation of the derivative works...
>
>I think it would make a lot of sense if courts held
>that compiling and linking are analogous to format changes
>(like converting an audio-visual work from DVD to VHS). This
Our (.br) courts do. I don't know (I'd have to read the cases
you cited) why did those courts ignored the intellectual
novelty requirement of a derivative work, but I'll look into
it.
>process involves making copies of the work so that it can be
>used in different environments that have different technical
>requirements. (Except in cases where one work is heavily
>adapted to the internals of another.) It's clear that anyone
>who tried to get an independent copyright on their compiled
>Linux kernel binary should be laughed off the planet.
>
>> >I think even if the result is not a derivative work,
>> >the rules for distributing it would be the same. However,
>> >it would change the rules for creating it. Either way,
>> >however, you get that you can do it without agreeing to
>> >the GPL, and this is the FSF's position.
>
>
>>You repeated this a lot of times, but you have not
>>substatitiated it, at least WRT something I asked you:
>>please, give me some *link* where EM, RMS, or any other
>>FSF/GNU guy contradicts the GPL section 0 paragraph 1
>>("modification") saying that you can modify a GPLd work
>>without agreeing to the GPL.
>
>
>This has always been their position, when modification
>is needed for ordinary use.
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 21:47 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:53:56PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: > > > > This is different. They are not giving the source at all. The licence > > > > for those object files _has_ to be different. _They_ want it to be > > > > different. > > > > > > Sure, but in this case, the binary firmware blob is also a binary without > > > sources. If they really did write said firmware directly as it is, then > > > they > > > should say so, but this is contrary to everyone's expectation, and a > > > dangerous > > > precedent to set. > > > > You should realize that any author can publish his work in the form he > > likes. He's not bound to "everyone's expectation". I see no danger in > > that. > > I think there may be some limitation of using the GPL as licence in this case > though, as such behavior may limit its value, and the GPL itself is by no > means free software. That GPL isn't the best license in this case (firmware included as hexstring in the driver source), we already know. But fixing it is up to the copyright holder. We or GPL face no risk. Note that the holder does. I'd be interesting if someone produced a derivative work, such a translation. A translation from the hex form to some kind of textual formally defined language, such as, say, assembler, or C. That would be covered by GPL. And would be distributable under it. Say that the resulting binary is slightly different. You are _required_ by GPL to provide the source in the preferred form, this time, preferred by _you_. What if that is C? Interesting enough. Can the hexstring be reverse-engineered into C, if it's placed under GPL? Can the copyright holder really prevent that? Something new to think of. :-) Have a nice day, .TM. -- / / / / / / Marco Colombo ___/ ___ / / Technical Manager / / / ESI s.r.l. _/ _/ _/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a > collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If > there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering > the parts. The creation of works that "can be linked together" > is not protected by copyright: the literary analogy was to > "create a robot short story". Such a story could go into an > anthology called (duh) "Robot Short Stories", but its > licensing is independent of every other robot short story in > the world -- except those it is a derivative work of. That's fine then, if you want to define derivative work in this way, then I can configure, compile, and link the Linux kernel without permission of the copyright holder under first sale (since no derivative work is created). I can write a program that uses a library, compile my program, and link it to the library, again without creating a derivative work. > You are making deaf ears: using a library (even by static > linkage) does NOT create a derivative work unless: > > (a) you make another version, subset or superset of > the same library, modifying, enhancing, the > functionality of the original library; or > > (b) you make a program that is *so* dependent on the > *internal* implementation structure of the library > that it can be considered a derivative work. Okay. This gets to the same result that I get to, which is that you can do all the things you want to do without permission from the copyright holder under first sale. Since this is not creating a derivative work, no special permission is needed. > >> >This is, by the way, the FSF's own position. It's not > >> >something I'm making up or guessing at. > >> > >>Please send us some pointers to this statements for the FSF. > > > > > >Read any of Eben Moglen's posts. > > > >> >"The license does not require anyone to accept it in order > >> >to acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally > >> >modify GPL'd software. All of those activities are either > >> >forbidden > >> > >>Wrong again. GPL, section 0, para 1: "Activities other than > >>copying, distribution, and *modification* are not covered by > >>this License". Emphasis mine. > >You are free to disagree with the FSF's interpretation of the > >GPL, but you are not free to misrepresent the FSF's > >interpreration. > No. First of all: you are begin uncivil here. I did not accuse > you of anything, other than not reading correctly what I > wrote previously; which I can attribute to my poor knowledge > of the English language. So, please, I am not being impolite > to you, do the same. Read the quote above. > Second: you did not provide a concrete pointer to one of Eben > Moglen's posts, for instance, saying that modification is not > covered by the GPL. Me, OTOH, showed you that the TEXT of the > GPL says it covers modifications. Read the quote. For about the fourth time in this thread, here's the cite: http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html "The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify GPL'd software." > >Feel free to disagree with the FSF about the meaning of the > >GPL, but it is the FSF's position that you can modify a GPL'd > >work without agreeing to the GPL. > I don't disagree with the FSF -- you are alleging that this is > their position, and I am disagreeing with YOU. And you have > not produced evidence in contrary. I don't know what to say. The FSF has had a clear, consistent position on the GPL for a very long time and it has always been that ordinary use is permitted without agreeing to the GPL. For source code, modification is often part of ordinary use. Anyone who has grabbed a package intended for a different version of their OS and had to tweak things to get the code to work knows this. > We = You and Me disagreeing. And you still have to show where > the FSF says the GPL does not cover modifications. I never said that the FSF says the GPL does not cover modifications, I said it doesn't cover ordinary use. That means it doesn't cover modifications when those modifications are made in the course of ordinary use. > >2) The result is not a derivative work, hence you > >don't need permission from the copyright holder to do it. > ** THIS ** : yes, the result is NOT a derivative work. > So, to link with a library you don't need permission. > That's what I said since the beginning. > >Either way you get the same result, permission is not > >needed beyond permission to use. > > Conceded. Okay. So you get to the same place I get by a different route. One of the strange things I've noticed is nearly all cases, you get the same result whether you think the final work is a derivative work or not. > >Then all the people who think that creating a binary >
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
David Schwartz wrote: >> >Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that >> >uses a library creates a derivative work of that library? > > >>No. Compiling and linking are mechanical, >>non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a >>collective work where the real intellectually-novel work was >>to select what goes into the collective. > > >Compiling and linking are mechanical, but unless you >want to argue that the result is not a single work, it >clearly creates a derivative work of all the things linked. >The creativity is not in the linking itself but in the >creation of the individual works such that they can be linked >together. That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering the parts. The creation of works that "can be linked together" is not protected by copyright: the literary analogy was to "create a robot short story". Such a story could go into an anthology called (duh) "Robot Short Stories", but its licensing is independent of every other robot short story in the world -- except those it is a derivative work of. Now, this is what copyright protects: creation of derivative works (see the definition, below) is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. I can't write a history featuring Daneel Olivaw or Susan Calving without the (written, express) permission of Mrs. Asimov and/or her daughter. And if I *do* have their consent (in the form of GPL'ing it, for instance), even so I can only copy and distribute *my* work in the terms permitted expressely by the consent I received (in the example, the terms of the GPL) > >> >Wouldn't you agree that this is the normal form of use of >> >a library? And doesn't first sale give you the right to >> >normal use of a work you have legally acquired? >> >>Yes. And yes, if you buy a copy of the library, yes (but >>notice: not if you downloaded it for free from the Net). > > >There is no legal distinction. Why do you think that? You can even be right on this, but your argument below did not convince me. >Your rights come not from the fact that you paid money for >the work but simply from the fact that you acquired it >legally. Again, the reductio ad absurdum is the guy who drops >copies of his poem from an airplane and then demands >royalities from everyone who reads it. If you legally >acquired it, you get the bundle of rights under first sale. You are spinning, you know? If I drop a poem from an airplane, and you get it from the ground, you can read it (this is not forbidden by copyright law) but you have *no* right of copying it, publishing it or redistributing it. Especially if my poem has my name or pseudonym on it. Yeah, you can even get the bundle of rights under first sale if you acquired it lawfully, and I must be wrong about my quoted paragraph above, and so I back out on my error and apologize for it. But making a derivative work is not (in principle) a first sale doctrine right. > >> >There are many ways you can lawfully create a derivative >> >work without explicit permission of the copyright holder. >> >One >> >>No. The copyright law states that the copyright owner has >>the monopolistic right to create derivative works. > > >Yes, but this doesn't restrict first sale or fair use. >You cannot use a library without creating a derivative work, >so if first sale grants you rights to use, it automatically >grants you the right to do anything necessary for use. You are making deaf ears: using a library (even by static linkage) does NOT create a derivative work unless: (a) you make another version, subset or superset of the same library, modifying, enhancing, the functionality of the original library; or (b) you make a program that is *so* dependent on the *internal* implementation structure of the library that it can be considered a derivative work. > >> >clear case is when you lawfully possess the work, there is >> >no EULA or shrink-wrap agreement, and you need to produce >> >a derivative work to use the work in the ordinary fashion. > > >>No... Try writing a book with Harry Potter as your main >>character and JKR's lawyers will be at your door soon. > > >Sometimes I wonder if you are reading what I said or not. Me too. >I said "you need to produce a derivative work to use the >work in the ordinary fashion" and you say "No" and follow >with an example where you clearly *don't* need to produce a >derivative work to use the work in the ordinary fashion. Ok, let's replay: David: "There are many ways you can lawfully create a derivative work." Me: "no, the only way to create a derivative work lawfully is having an authorization from the copyright owner." David: "You cannot use a library without creating a derivative work,", implying that it would be your first sale doctring right. Me: "No, simply linking a library in NO hypothesis creates a derivative
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
David Schwartz wrote: Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that uses a library creates a derivative work of that library? No. Compiling and linking are mechanical, non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a collective work where the real intellectually-novel work was to select what goes into the collective. Compiling and linking are mechanical, but unless you want to argue that the result is not a single work, it clearly creates a derivative work of all the things linked. The creativity is not in the linking itself but in the creation of the individual works such that they can be linked together. That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering the parts. The creation of works that can be linked together is not protected by copyright: the literary analogy was to create a robot short story. Such a story could go into an anthology called (duh) Robot Short Stories, but its licensing is independent of every other robot short story in the world -- except those it is a derivative work of. Now, this is what copyright protects: creation of derivative works (see the definition, below) is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. I can't write a history featuring Daneel Olivaw or Susan Calving without the (written, express) permission of Mrs. Asimov and/or her daughter. And if I *do* have their consent (in the form of GPL'ing it, for instance), even so I can only copy and distribute *my* work in the terms permitted expressely by the consent I received (in the example, the terms of the GPL) Wouldn't you agree that this is the normal form of use of a library? And doesn't first sale give you the right to normal use of a work you have legally acquired? Yes. And yes, if you buy a copy of the library, yes (but notice: not if you downloaded it for free from the Net). There is no legal distinction. Why do you think that? You can even be right on this, but your argument below did not convince me. Your rights come not from the fact that you paid money for the work but simply from the fact that you acquired it legally. Again, the reductio ad absurdum is the guy who drops copies of his poem from an airplane and then demands royalities from everyone who reads it. If you legally acquired it, you get the bundle of rights under first sale. You are spinning, you know? If I drop a poem from an airplane, and you get it from the ground, you can read it (this is not forbidden by copyright law) but you have *no* right of copying it, publishing it or redistributing it. Especially if my poem has my name or pseudonym on it. Yeah, you can even get the bundle of rights under first sale if you acquired it lawfully, and I must be wrong about my quoted paragraph above, and so I back out on my error and apologize for it. But making a derivative work is not (in principle) a first sale doctrine right. There are many ways you can lawfully create a derivative work without explicit permission of the copyright holder. One No. The copyright law states that the copyright owner has the monopolistic right to create derivative works. Yes, but this doesn't restrict first sale or fair use. You cannot use a library without creating a derivative work, so if first sale grants you rights to use, it automatically grants you the right to do anything necessary for use. You are making deaf ears: using a library (even by static linkage) does NOT create a derivative work unless: (a) you make another version, subset or superset of the same library, modifying, enhancing, the functionality of the original library; or (b) you make a program that is *so* dependent on the *internal* implementation structure of the library that it can be considered a derivative work. clear case is when you lawfully possess the work, there is no EULA or shrink-wrap agreement, and you need to produce a derivative work to use the work in the ordinary fashion. No... Try writing a book with Harry Potter as your main character and JKR's lawyers will be at your door soon. Sometimes I wonder if you are reading what I said or not. Me too. I said you need to produce a derivative work to use the work in the ordinary fashion and you say No and follow with an example where you clearly *don't* need to produce a derivative work to use the work in the ordinary fashion. Ok, let's replay: David: There are many ways you can lawfully create a derivative work. Me: no, the only way to create a derivative work lawfully is having an authorization from the copyright owner. David: You cannot use a library without creating a derivative work,, implying that it would be your first sale doctring right. Me: No, simply linking a library in NO hypothesis creates a derivative work. Summary? You could not show me any example where you *must* create a derivative work to exert your first
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 21:47 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:53:56PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: This is different. They are not giving the source at all. The licence for those object files _has_ to be different. _They_ want it to be different. Sure, but in this case, the binary firmware blob is also a binary without sources. If they really did write said firmware directly as it is, then they should say so, but this is contrary to everyone's expectation, and a dangerous precedent to set. You should realize that any author can publish his work in the form he likes. He's not bound to everyone's expectation. I see no danger in that. I think there may be some limitation of using the GPL as licence in this case though, as such behavior may limit its value, and the GPL itself is by no means free software. That GPL isn't the best license in this case (firmware included as hexstring in the driver source), we already know. But fixing it is up to the copyright holder. We or GPL face no risk. Note that the holder does. I'd be interesting if someone produced a derivative work, such a translation. A translation from the hex form to some kind of textual formally defined language, such as, say, assembler, or C. That would be covered by GPL. And would be distributable under it. Say that the resulting binary is slightly different. You are _required_ by GPL to provide the source in the preferred form, this time, preferred by _you_. What if that is C? Interesting enough. Can the hexstring be reverse-engineered into C, if it's placed under GPL? Can the copyright holder really prevent that? Something new to think of. :-) Have a nice day, .TM. -- / / / / / / Marco Colombo ___/ ___ / / Technical Manager / / / ESI s.r.l. _/ _/ _/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering the parts. The creation of works that can be linked together is not protected by copyright: the literary analogy was to create a robot short story. Such a story could go into an anthology called (duh) Robot Short Stories, but its licensing is independent of every other robot short story in the world -- except those it is a derivative work of. That's fine then, if you want to define derivative work in this way, then I can configure, compile, and link the Linux kernel without permission of the copyright holder under first sale (since no derivative work is created). I can write a program that uses a library, compile my program, and link it to the library, again without creating a derivative work. You are making deaf ears: using a library (even by static linkage) does NOT create a derivative work unless: (a) you make another version, subset or superset of the same library, modifying, enhancing, the functionality of the original library; or (b) you make a program that is *so* dependent on the *internal* implementation structure of the library that it can be considered a derivative work. Okay. This gets to the same result that I get to, which is that you can do all the things you want to do without permission from the copyright holder under first sale. Since this is not creating a derivative work, no special permission is needed. This is, by the way, the FSF's own position. It's not something I'm making up or guessing at. Please send us some pointers to this statements for the FSF. Read any of Eben Moglen's posts. The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify GPL'd software. All of those activities are either forbidden Wrong again. GPL, section 0, para 1: Activities other than copying, distribution, and *modification* are not covered by this License. Emphasis mine. You are free to disagree with the FSF's interpretation of the GPL, but you are not free to misrepresent the FSF's interpreration. No. First of all: you are begin uncivil here. I did not accuse you of anything, other than not reading correctly what I wrote previously; which I can attribute to my poor knowledge of the English language. So, please, I am not being impolite to you, do the same. Read the quote above. Second: you did not provide a concrete pointer to one of Eben Moglen's posts, for instance, saying that modification is not covered by the GPL. Me, OTOH, showed you that the TEXT of the GPL says it covers modifications. Read the quote. For about the fourth time in this thread, here's the cite: http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify GPL'd software. Feel free to disagree with the FSF about the meaning of the GPL, but it is the FSF's position that you can modify a GPL'd work without agreeing to the GPL. I don't disagree with the FSF -- you are alleging that this is their position, and I am disagreeing with YOU. And you have not produced evidence in contrary. I don't know what to say. The FSF has had a clear, consistent position on the GPL for a very long time and it has always been that ordinary use is permitted without agreeing to the GPL. For source code, modification is often part of ordinary use. Anyone who has grabbed a package intended for a different version of their OS and had to tweak things to get the code to work knows this. We = You and Me disagreeing. And you still have to show where the FSF says the GPL does not cover modifications. I never said that the FSF says the GPL does not cover modifications, I said it doesn't cover ordinary use. That means it doesn't cover modifications when those modifications are made in the course of ordinary use. 2) The result is not a derivative work, hence you don't need permission from the copyright holder to do it. ** THIS ** : yes, the result is NOT a derivative work. So, to link with a library you don't need permission. That's what I said since the beginning. Either way you get the same result, permission is not needed beyond permission to use. Conceded. Okay. So you get to the same place I get by a different route. One of the strange things I've noticed is nearly all cases, you get the same result whether you think the final work is a derivative work or not. Then all the people who think that creating a binary kernel module requires creating a derivative work and hence can be restricted by the GPL are wrong. Take that argument
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
David Schwartz wrote: That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering the parts. The creation of works that can be linked together is not protected by copyright: the literary analogy was to create a robot short story. Such a story could go into an anthology called (duh) Robot Short Stories, but its licensing is independent of every other robot short story in the world -- except those it is a derivative work of. That's fine then, if you want to define derivative work in this way, then I can configure, compile, and link the Not me -- copyright law defines derivative works in this way. Linux kernel without permission of the copyright holder under first sale (since no derivative work is created). I can write a program that uses a library, compile my program, and link it to the library, again without creating a derivative work. I already conceded on this. (...) Read the quote above. ?! I did not understand which quote, or which part. But I suspect you're talking about lu-12.html (below), for which just now you pointed me to. Second: you did not provide a concrete pointer to one of Eben Moglen's posts, for instance, saying that modification is not covered by the GPL. Me, OTOH, showed you that the TEXT of the GPL says it covers modifications. Read the quote. For about the fourth time in this thread, here's the cite: http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify GPL'd software. This is the first time you gave me an URL. I'll look into it. (...) I never said that the FSF says the GPL does not cover modifications, I said it doesn't cover ordinary use. That means it doesn't cover modifications when those modifications are made in the course of ordinary use. Insofar, you did not show me an example of need to create a derivative work in the course of the ordinary use. (...) Okay. So you get to the same place I get by a different route. One of the strange things I've noticed is nearly all cases, you get the same result whether you think the final work is a derivative work or not. (...) Now some things interesting: I don't think courts seem to agree with this, but I can only find cases where the result really would have been the same whether or not the work was derivative. For example, one case inolved a company that stole test questions from another company. The courts ruled that the test with some of the borrowed questions was a derivative work, even though there's no special integration of the questions. But they could perfectly well have reached the same conclusion without the derivative work argument. There are court cases on point that definitely disagree with you, for example Mirage Editions, Inv. v. Albuquerque ART (cutting a picture out of a book creates a derivative work). Also National Football League v. TVRadio Now (embedding someone else's broadcast with your advertisements through an automated process creates a derivative work). The embedding was not made by a fully automated process, was it? Didn't someone had to create the advertisements, with the purpose to be presented embedded in the broadcast? I suspect -- without looking at the case files at the moment -- that there was the creation of the derivative works... I think it would make a lot of sense if courts held that compiling and linking are analogous to format changes (like converting an audio-visual work from DVD to VHS). This Our (.br) courts do. I don't know (I'd have to read the cases you cited) why did those courts ignored the intellectual novelty requirement of a derivative work, but I'll look into it. process involves making copies of the work so that it can be used in different environments that have different technical requirements. (Except in cases where one work is heavily adapted to the internals of another.) It's clear that anyone who tried to get an independent copyright on their compiled Linux kernel binary should be laughed off the planet. I think even if the result is not a derivative work, the rules for distributing it would be the same. However, it would change the rules for creating it. Either way, however, you get that you can do it without agreeing to the GPL, and this is the FSF's position. You repeated this a lot of times, but you have not substatitiated it, at least WRT something I asked you: please, give me some *link* where EM, RMS, or any other FSF/GNU guy contradicts the GPL section 0 paragraph 1 (modification) saying that you can modify a GPLd work without agreeing to the GPL. This has always been their position, when modification is needed for ordinary use. See the quote from Eben Moglen above. Now, as I said, they reach different conclusions based on this, but we agree on this. DS Now
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering the parts. The creation of works that can be linked together is not protected by copyright: the literary analogy was to create a robot short story. Such a story could go into an anthology called (duh) Robot Short Stories, but its licensing is independent of every other robot short story in the world -- except those it is a derivative work of. On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:44:10AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: That's fine then, if you want to define derivative work in this way, then I can configure, compile, and link the Linux kernel without permission of the copyright holder under first sale (since no derivative work is created). I can write a program that uses a library, compile my program, and link it to the library, again without creating a derivative work. It's quite true that linking does not create a derivative work. However, it might be the case that a derivative work had already been created. Only when you have legally obtained copies of a work are you entitled to retain those copies. Technical details (such as downloading the work in pieces, from different sites, perhaps using bittorrent, or perhaps using ftp, or perhaps using other protocols) don't make any more difference [either positively or negatively] than linking does. Okay. This gets to the same result that I get to, which is that you can do all the things you want to do without permission from the copyright holder under first sale. Since this is not creating a derivative work, no special permission is needed. Sure. Of course this doesn't apply when you got the copy from someone who wasn't entitled to give it to you. For example, if I'm distributing some program derived from a GPLed program and I have no intention of providing source for the derived form, I'm at fault, and depending on details you might or might not have a license to the derivative I authored. On the other hand, the GPL itself has an explicit exception for this case, the GPLed content is legal for other people to use even if the person distributing it had lost their copyright grant. But if we're talking about linking and derived works, you could easily be using derived code which is not GPLed. The GPL can't offer you any rights to that code, because someone else owns the copyright. -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> > What compels you to agree with an EULA? On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:54:29PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do not acquire > lawful possession of the work. What about cases where you pay for the software before you're allowed to see the EULA? -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Long OT] Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
This thread should probably get moved off-list soon, it's like beating the dead horse long after its flesh has decayed and its bones disintegrated to dust. On Apr 13, 2005, at 21:54, David Schwartz wrote: On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: Yes, the GPL can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have. A EULA can take away rights you would otherwise have. What compels you to agree with an EULA? If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do not acquire lawful possession of the work. Of course, one could always assert the following: 1) I went to a store 2) I found a box 3) I went to the cash register 4) I gave money to the cashier for the box 5) I took the box home 6) I opened the box and took out the contents Now, to the end user, the above is the same procedure for purchasing a box of cereal or a piece of software, therefore the restrictions are the same. I'm not allowed to distribute the copyrightable materials, which for a cereal box is the images on the box, and for a CD is the digital data stored therein. Other than that, I can take a hammer and smash my CD/cereal, I can make a dozen copies of the CD/box-art and mount them on the wall or burn them, both of which are symbolic speech. I can make backup copies of my cereal box-art/CD too. At what point of the above did I agree to any license? As far as I know, a license (IE: contract) is not valid for a product unless made at the point-of-sale, before exchanging money. This is especially valid since almost all computer retailers refuse refunds for opened software. When you have to open the box to see the license, that's bad, but when, as I've seen far too many times, you have to break the seal and insert the CD to even _see_ the license, it cannot be valid. The only real point of most of the EULAs is to protect the owners copyright, which is implicitly protected in any case. Cheers, Kyle Moffett -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a18 C>$ UB/L/X/*(+)>$ P+++()>$ L(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+ PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b(++) DI+ D+ G e->$ h!*()>++$ r !y?(-) --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > Yes, the GPL can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have. A > > EULA can take away rights you would otherwise have. > What compels you to agree with an EULA? If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do not acquire lawful possession of the work. > > In the few court cases that have directly addresses shrink-wrap and > > click-wrap type agreements, I've seen them consistently upheld. However, > > this is not relevent to the GPL issue at all because the GPL > > can only give > > you rights you wouldn't otherwise have, it cannot take away any rights. > The GPL offers you certain rights if you agree to be bound by certain > conditions. Right, and normally the way you become bound by the GPL is if you do something that you could not acquire the right to do any other way. That's why GPL issues frequently hinge on whether you could not acquire the right any other way. Possible other ways include first sale and fair use. > You are not compelled to agree to those conditions, but those who do > not gain no rights from the GPL. Right, again, that's why it's important to look at whether they could have acquired the rights any other way. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> >Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that > >uses a library creates a derivative work of that library? > No. Compiling and linking are mechanical, > non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a collective > work where the real intellectually-novel work was to select > what goes into the collective. Compiling and linking are mechanical, but unless you want to argue that the result is not a single work, it clearly creates a derivative work of all the things linked. The creativity is not in the linking itself but in the creation of the individual works such that they can be linked together. > >Wouldn't you agree that this is the normal form of use of a > >library? And doesn't first sale give you the right to normal > >use of a work you have legally acquired? > > Yes. And yes, if you buy a copy of the library, yes (but > notice: not if you downloaded it for free from the Net). There is no legal distinction. Your rights come not from the fact that you paid money for the work but simply from the fact that you acquired it legally. Again, the reductio ad absurdum is the guy who drops copies of his poem from an airplane and then demands royalities from everyone who reads it. If you legally acquired it, you get the bundle of rights under first sale. > >There are many ways you can lawfully create a derivative work > >without explicit permission of the copyright holder. One > > No. The copyright law states that the copyright owner has the > monopolistic right to create derivative works. Yes, but this doesn't restrict first sale or fair use. You cannot use a library without creating a derivative work, so if first sale grants you rights to use, it automatically grants you the right to do anything necessary for use. > >clear case is when you lawfully possess the work, there is no > >EULA or shrink-wrap agreement, and you need to produce a > >derivative work to use the work in the ordinary fashion. > No... Try writing a book with Harry Potter as your main > character and JKR's lawyers will be at your door soon. Sometimes I wonder if you are reading what I said or not. I said "you need to produce a derivative work to use the work in the ordinary fashion" and you say "No" and follow with an example where you clearly *don't* need to produce a derivative work to use the work in the ordinary fashion. > >This is, by the way, the FSF's own position. It's not > >something I'm making up or guessing at. > > Please send us some pointers to this statements for the FSF. Read any of Eben Moglen's posts. > >"The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to > >acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify > >GPL'd software. All of those activities are either forbidden > > Wrong again. GPL, section 0, para 1: "Activities other than > copying, distribution, and *modification* are not covered by > this License". Emphasis mine. You are free to disagree with the FSF's interpretation of the GPL, but you are not free to misrepresent the FSF's interpreration. > >or controlled by proprietary software firms, so they require > >you to accept a license, including contractual provisions > >outside the reach of copyright, before you can use their > >works. The free software movement thinks all those > >activities are rights, which all users ought to have; we > >don't even want to cover those activities by license." > > Except for the modification part, which *is* the scope of > regular, Berne-convention-molded copyrights law. Feel free to disagree with the FSF about the meaning of the GPL, but it is the FSF's position that you can modify a GPL'd work without agreeing to the GPL. > >Now we draw different conclusions based on this, but we agree > >on this. You do not need to agree to the GPL to create > >derivative works. > > No, we disagree on this too. I don't know who "we" is, but I agree with the FSF. > >>If you will keep your copy and registration # of windows, > >>yes, you *must* wipe out the machine before selling it. > > > > > >Since there is no copy or registration number of a GPL'd work > >to keep, this actually argues the reverse of what I said. If > >I legally acquire ten copies of Windows, I can perform normal > >use on those ten copies and then transfer those copies to > >someone else. > This is not the point: you still would have to wipe your ten > computers clean if you want to sell the ten copies you have. Right. You cannot increase the number of copies. > In the GPL'd case, if you disregard the terms of the license, > you can still keep, use, etc. You can *not* copy it, > distribute it, or modify it tough. You can, so long as you don't increase the number of copies. This is a right under first sale. > >>So, no, when you get a WinXP CD from Microsoft, you have > >>absolutely *no* rights to create derivative works. If a > >>person creates a
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:53:56PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: > > > This is different. They are not giving the source at all. The licence > > > for those object files _has_ to be different. _They_ want it to be > > > different. > > > > Sure, but in this case, the binary firmware blob is also a binary without > > sources. If they really did write said firmware directly as it is, then they > > should say so, but this is contrary to everyone's expectation, and a > > dangerous > > precedent to set. > > You should realize that any author can publish his work in the form he > likes. He's not bound to "everyone's expectation". I see no danger in > that. I think there may be some limitation of using the GPL as licence in this case though, as such behavior may limit its value, and the GPL itself is by no means free software. Friendly, Sven Luther - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 20:45 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:14:17PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: > > No one will ever do that. If you are distributing the software I released > > under GPL, be sure I _will_ sue you if you break the licence. What do you > > want from me? A promise I won't sue you if you don't? That is implicit > > in the existance of the licence. > > > > Are you implying debian will stop distributing _any_ software unless > > the all the copyright holders of GPL software "explicitly say" they > > won't sue you? > > Well, we won't distribute binaries placed under the GPL, definitively not. And > if there is a dubious case, we ask for clarification of the author. Your choice, of course. [...] > > This is different. They are not giving the source at all. The licence > > for those object files _has_ to be different. _They_ want it to be > > different. > > Sure, but in this case, the binary firmware blob is also a binary without > sources. If they really did write said firmware directly as it is, then they > should say so, but this is contrary to everyone's expectation, and a dangerous > precedent to set. You should realize that any author can publish his work in the form he likes. He's not bound to "everyone's expectation". I see no danger in that. > > >So, really, i doubt any manufacturer distributing non-free firmware would > > >really have trouble in adding to their licence something like this : > > > > > > In addition, , considers the firmware blob, identified as > > > <...>, as > > > a non-derivative piece of work, and thus not covered by the GPL of the > > > rest > > > of it. gives permission to distribute said firmware blob as > > > part of the linux kernel module driver for their hardware. The actual > > > syntax > > > of the inclusion of the code is still covered by the GPL, as is the rest > > > of > > > the driver code. > > > > This is fine with me. It is the existance of legal threats versus > > debian I don't agree upon. > > Notice that debian can't afford to be sued even if they are right, so ... So what? This is not the point. You can be sued any time by any one, even if you're right. If debian can't afford it, it can't afford existance. > > >>Yes, but it does not apply to our case here. There's no "all other > > >>copyright holders". _You_ stated that the firmware is included by mere > > >>aggregation, so there's no other holders involved. We're talking > > >>about the firmware case. A is one or two well identified subjects. > > >>And A wrote it is GPL'ed. Whether you agree or not, that's the licence > > >>A chose. A placed the copyright notice. > > > > > >This is where i would need legal counsel, as to whether this means C or > > >someone else may stop you from distributing unless you provide the source. > > >And > > >the real problem is that A didn't state anything, so we are only working on > > >the assumption that this may be the case, and A can change its mind later, > > >and > > >the costs to defend ourselves in front of a judge, even if your > > >interpretations are right, are enough prohibitive for debian not to > > >distribute > > >said files. > > > > A did put a GPL notice on it. He can't change his mind later. > > Then he should give us the source. No, why? GPL cannot place restrictions or obligations on the copyright owner. Let's stop discussing it please, you can't buy me on this either. I have my own interpretation of what a license it, and it seems you don't agree with it: to me, it's one way: _you_, the licensee, get some rights if you fulfill some conditions. Conditions are all placed on you, none on the copyright holder. In particular, the one about making source available is placed on distributors, verbatim copies of the source for binary distribution of the work, or full source of the modifications for modified versions of the work. And anyway, this has nothing to do with with legal threats from the copyright holder. My point being: he cannot sue you for not distributing the source "as provided by him" if he failed to provide them in the first place in a different from. That is, he has to give you the source, if he is trying to force you distributing it. > > >>The licence is a matter between A and D. A may sue D and D may (less > > >>likely) sue A, if conditions are not met. I'm not sure at all GPL > > >>is enforceable by D upon A. Let's assume it is, for sake of discussion, > > >>anyway. > > > > > >Ah, but the licence is transitive, and if D may sue A, then C may also sue > > >D, > > >since the GPL makes no distinction between who makes the distribution, > > >apart > > >from the fact that A may relicence its code. But if he distributes it as > > >part > > >of the GPL ... > > > > Pardon me, I have no idea of what a "transitive" licence could be. > > Sublicencing or relicencing is _explicitly_ not covered by GPL anyway. > > You give away the source to someone, he has the same rights you had, except >
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: > Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no acceptance, > which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance, no > contract, no exceptions. False. For example, you can indicate acceptance of the GPL by exercising the rights it grants. Furthermore, the converse is also false: it's quite possible to install software on your machine without clicking on the click-through license. For example, someone else might install it for you. [You expect my dad to figure out how to install anything?] -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote: > > > > The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA. > > > > Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely > > > upheld in the USA. > > > If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them. > > > http://www.freibrunlaw.com/articles/articl22.htm > > This wasn't a copyright case. The court only refused to uphold the > agreement because there was no oppurtunity to review the agreement before > purchase. So it certainly wouldn't apply to a click-through type agreement. So you can review click-through-licenses before buying the product? -- Funny quotes: 32. "I am" is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that "I do" is the longest sentence? Friß, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 10:46 pm, Raul Miller wrote: > In essence, you're claiming that the difference between Davidson > & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004) and other cases such as > Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) > is that the presence of a click-through is the determining factor. > Of course, it could just as easily be something else (for example, > admitting in court agreement with the license). Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no acceptance, which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance, no contract, no exceptions. So yes, the difference in many of the click through license cases is whether the contract was something you couldn't avoid accepting. There is talk these days among tech contract drafters to develop a more universal method for electronic acceptance... probably something that will be written into the Uniform Commercial Code in the next few decades (behold, the speed of legal evolution!). -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] c: 206.498.8207 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://probonogeek.blogspot.com So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 10:46 pm, Raul Miller wrote: In essence, you're claiming that the difference between Davidson Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004) and other cases such as Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) is that the presence of a click-through is the determining factor. Of course, it could just as easily be something else (for example, admitting in court agreement with the license). Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no acceptance, which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance, no contract, no exceptions. So yes, the difference in many of the click through license cases is whether the contract was something you couldn't avoid accepting. There is talk these days among tech contract drafters to develop a more universal method for electronic acceptance... probably something that will be written into the Uniform Commercial Code in the next few decades (behold, the speed of legal evolution!). -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] c: 206.498.8207 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://probonogeek.blogspot.com So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote: The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA. Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely upheld in the USA. If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them. http://www.freibrunlaw.com/articles/articl22.htm This wasn't a copyright case. The court only refused to uphold the agreement because there was no oppurtunity to review the agreement before purchase. So it certainly wouldn't apply to a click-through type agreement. So you can review click-through-licenses before buying the product? -- Funny quotes: 32. I am is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that I do is the longest sentence? Friß, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no acceptance, which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance, no contract, no exceptions. False. For example, you can indicate acceptance of the GPL by exercising the rights it grants. Furthermore, the converse is also false: it's quite possible to install software on your machine without clicking on the click-through license. For example, someone else might install it for you. [You expect my dad to figure out how to install anything?] -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 20:45 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:14:17PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: No one will ever do that. If you are distributing the software I released under GPL, be sure I _will_ sue you if you break the licence. What do you want from me? A promise I won't sue you if you don't? That is implicit in the existance of the licence. Are you implying debian will stop distributing _any_ software unless the all the copyright holders of GPL software explicitly say they won't sue you? Well, we won't distribute binaries placed under the GPL, definitively not. And if there is a dubious case, we ask for clarification of the author. Your choice, of course. [...] This is different. They are not giving the source at all. The licence for those object files _has_ to be different. _They_ want it to be different. Sure, but in this case, the binary firmware blob is also a binary without sources. If they really did write said firmware directly as it is, then they should say so, but this is contrary to everyone's expectation, and a dangerous precedent to set. You should realize that any author can publish his work in the form he likes. He's not bound to everyone's expectation. I see no danger in that. So, really, i doubt any manufacturer distributing non-free firmware would really have trouble in adding to their licence something like this : In addition, manufacturer, considers the firmware blob, identified as ..., as a non-derivative piece of work, and thus not covered by the GPL of the rest of it. manufacturer gives permission to distribute said firmware blob as part of the linux kernel module driver for their hardware. The actual syntax of the inclusion of the code is still covered by the GPL, as is the rest of the driver code. This is fine with me. It is the existance of legal threats versus debian I don't agree upon. Notice that debian can't afford to be sued even if they are right, so ... So what? This is not the point. You can be sued any time by any one, even if you're right. If debian can't afford it, it can't afford existance. Yes, but it does not apply to our case here. There's no all other copyright holders. _You_ stated that the firmware is included by mere aggregation, so there's no other holders involved. We're talking about the firmware case. A is one or two well identified subjects. And A wrote it is GPL'ed. Whether you agree or not, that's the licence A chose. A placed the copyright notice. This is where i would need legal counsel, as to whether this means C or someone else may stop you from distributing unless you provide the source. And the real problem is that A didn't state anything, so we are only working on the assumption that this may be the case, and A can change its mind later, and the costs to defend ourselves in front of a judge, even if your interpretations are right, are enough prohibitive for debian not to distribute said files. A did put a GPL notice on it. He can't change his mind later. Then he should give us the source. No, why? GPL cannot place restrictions or obligations on the copyright owner. Let's stop discussing it please, you can't buy me on this either. I have my own interpretation of what a license it, and it seems you don't agree with it: to me, it's one way: _you_, the licensee, get some rights if you fulfill some conditions. Conditions are all placed on you, none on the copyright holder. In particular, the one about making source available is placed on distributors, verbatim copies of the source for binary distribution of the work, or full source of the modifications for modified versions of the work. And anyway, this has nothing to do with with legal threats from the copyright holder. My point being: he cannot sue you for not distributing the source as provided by him if he failed to provide them in the first place in a different from. That is, he has to give you the source, if he is trying to force you distributing it. The licence is a matter between A and D. A may sue D and D may (less likely) sue A, if conditions are not met. I'm not sure at all GPL is enforceable by D upon A. Let's assume it is, for sake of discussion, anyway. Ah, but the licence is transitive, and if D may sue A, then C may also sue D, since the GPL makes no distinction between who makes the distribution, apart from the fact that A may relicence its code. But if he distributes it as part of the GPL ... Pardon me, I have no idea of what a transitive licence could be. Sublicencing or relicencing is _explicitly_ not covered by GPL anyway. You give away the source to someone, he has the same rights you had, except relicencing, this is what i meant by transitive. GPL explicitly says that when you, a distributor, give the source to someone, he receives a license, another instance of GPL so to
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:53:56PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: This is different. They are not giving the source at all. The licence for those object files _has_ to be different. _They_ want it to be different. Sure, but in this case, the binary firmware blob is also a binary without sources. If they really did write said firmware directly as it is, then they should say so, but this is contrary to everyone's expectation, and a dangerous precedent to set. You should realize that any author can publish his work in the form he likes. He's not bound to everyone's expectation. I see no danger in that. I think there may be some limitation of using the GPL as licence in this case though, as such behavior may limit its value, and the GPL itself is by no means free software. Friendly, Sven Luther - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that uses a library creates a derivative work of that library? No. Compiling and linking are mechanical, non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a collective work where the real intellectually-novel work was to select what goes into the collective. Compiling and linking are mechanical, but unless you want to argue that the result is not a single work, it clearly creates a derivative work of all the things linked. The creativity is not in the linking itself but in the creation of the individual works such that they can be linked together. Wouldn't you agree that this is the normal form of use of a library? And doesn't first sale give you the right to normal use of a work you have legally acquired? Yes. And yes, if you buy a copy of the library, yes (but notice: not if you downloaded it for free from the Net). There is no legal distinction. Your rights come not from the fact that you paid money for the work but simply from the fact that you acquired it legally. Again, the reductio ad absurdum is the guy who drops copies of his poem from an airplane and then demands royalities from everyone who reads it. If you legally acquired it, you get the bundle of rights under first sale. There are many ways you can lawfully create a derivative work without explicit permission of the copyright holder. One No. The copyright law states that the copyright owner has the monopolistic right to create derivative works. Yes, but this doesn't restrict first sale or fair use. You cannot use a library without creating a derivative work, so if first sale grants you rights to use, it automatically grants you the right to do anything necessary for use. clear case is when you lawfully possess the work, there is no EULA or shrink-wrap agreement, and you need to produce a derivative work to use the work in the ordinary fashion. No... Try writing a book with Harry Potter as your main character and JKR's lawyers will be at your door soon. Sometimes I wonder if you are reading what I said or not. I said you need to produce a derivative work to use the work in the ordinary fashion and you say No and follow with an example where you clearly *don't* need to produce a derivative work to use the work in the ordinary fashion. This is, by the way, the FSF's own position. It's not something I'm making up or guessing at. Please send us some pointers to this statements for the FSF. Read any of Eben Moglen's posts. The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify GPL'd software. All of those activities are either forbidden Wrong again. GPL, section 0, para 1: Activities other than copying, distribution, and *modification* are not covered by this License. Emphasis mine. You are free to disagree with the FSF's interpretation of the GPL, but you are not free to misrepresent the FSF's interpreration. or controlled by proprietary software firms, so they require you to accept a license, including contractual provisions outside the reach of copyright, before you can use their works. The free software movement thinks all those activities are rights, which all users ought to have; we don't even want to cover those activities by license. Except for the modification part, which *is* the scope of regular, Berne-convention-molded copyrights law. Feel free to disagree with the FSF about the meaning of the GPL, but it is the FSF's position that you can modify a GPL'd work without agreeing to the GPL. Now we draw different conclusions based on this, but we agree on this. You do not need to agree to the GPL to create derivative works. No, we disagree on this too. I don't know who we is, but I agree with the FSF. If you will keep your copy and registration # of windows, yes, you *must* wipe out the machine before selling it. Since there is no copy or registration number of a GPL'd work to keep, this actually argues the reverse of what I said. If I legally acquire ten copies of Windows, I can perform normal use on those ten copies and then transfer those copies to someone else. This is not the point: you still would have to wipe your ten computers clean if you want to sell the ten copies you have. Right. You cannot increase the number of copies. In the GPL'd case, if you disregard the terms of the license, you can still keep, use, etc. You can *not* copy it, distribute it, or modify it tough. You can, so long as you don't increase the number of copies. This is a right under first sale. So, no, when you get a WinXP CD from Microsoft, you have absolutely *no* rights to create derivative works. If a person creates a derivative work, even if it does not distribute it, it would be infringing on MS's copyrights and I would not
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: Yes, the GPL can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have. A EULA can take away rights you would otherwise have. What compels you to agree with an EULA? If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do not acquire lawful possession of the work. In the few court cases that have directly addresses shrink-wrap and click-wrap type agreements, I've seen them consistently upheld. However, this is not relevent to the GPL issue at all because the GPL can only give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have, it cannot take away any rights. The GPL offers you certain rights if you agree to be bound by certain conditions. Right, and normally the way you become bound by the GPL is if you do something that you could not acquire the right to do any other way. That's why GPL issues frequently hinge on whether you could not acquire the right any other way. Possible other ways include first sale and fair use. You are not compelled to agree to those conditions, but those who do not gain no rights from the GPL. Right, again, that's why it's important to look at whether they could have acquired the rights any other way. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Long OT] Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
This thread should probably get moved off-list soon, it's like beating the dead horse long after its flesh has decayed and its bones disintegrated to dust. On Apr 13, 2005, at 21:54, David Schwartz wrote: On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: Yes, the GPL can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have. A EULA can take away rights you would otherwise have. What compels you to agree with an EULA? If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do not acquire lawful possession of the work. Of course, one could always assert the following: 1) I went to a store 2) I found a box 3) I went to the cash register 4) I gave money to the cashier for the box 5) I took the box home 6) I opened the box and took out the contents Now, to the end user, the above is the same procedure for purchasing a box of cereal or a piece of software, therefore the restrictions are the same. I'm not allowed to distribute the copyrightable materials, which for a cereal box is the images on the box, and for a CD is the digital data stored therein. Other than that, I can take a hammer and smash my CD/cereal, I can make a dozen copies of the CD/box-art and mount them on the wall or burn them, both of which are symbolic speech. I can make backup copies of my cereal box-art/CD too. At what point of the above did I agree to any license? As far as I know, a license (IE: contract) is not valid for a product unless made at the point-of-sale, before exchanging money. This is especially valid since almost all computer retailers refuse refunds for opened software. When you have to open the box to see the license, that's bad, but when, as I've seen far too many times, you have to break the seal and insert the CD to even _see_ the license, it cannot be valid. The only real point of most of the EULAs is to protect the owners copyright, which is implicitly protected in any case. Cheers, Kyle Moffett -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a18 C$ UB/L/X/*(+)$ P+++()$ L(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+ PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b(++) DI+ D+ G e-$ h!*()++$ r !y?(-) --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
What compels you to agree with an EULA? On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:54:29PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do not acquire lawful possession of the work. What about cases where you pay for the software before you're allowed to see the EULA? -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:45:43PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > This wasn't a copyright case. The court only refused to uphold the > agreement because there was no oppurtunity to review the agreement before > purchase. So it certainly wouldn't apply to a click-through type agreement. http://www.answers.com/topic/first-sale-doctrine cites several cases, and has a very nice writeup on the current status of this issue. In essence, you're claiming that the difference between Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004) and other cases such as Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) is that the presence of a click-through is the determining factor. Of course, it could just as easily be something else (for example, admitting in court agreement with the license). Does this thread have anything to do with the linux kernel at this point? -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 20:45 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: [snip] > > A did put a GPL notice on it. He can't change his mind later. > Then he should give us the source. [snip] > The fact remains that those firmware blob have no licence, and thus defacto > fall under the GPL. > > > Moreover, the firmare in not in binary form, but is part of a C source > > file. > > It is in binary form. Disguised binary form maybe but still binary form. [snip] > And where did those hexstrings come from ? It seems to me, that to be consistent with the argument you seem to be presenting concerning binary data in GPLd code, that you also need to be demanding the "source" hardware design for binary register values. Why not consider the binary firmware in the same category as binary register programming information? You poke these magic bytes into these memory locations and it works. Where do you draw the lines between "write this byte to set the input gate here and the output gate to there" and "write this byte sequence to send the input byte through this loop, into this buffer, add it to the last byte entered, and output it over there"? -- Zan Lynx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
David Schwartz wrote: >>David Schwartz wrote: >> >>> This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to >>> agree to the license to *create* the derivative work. If >>> you were able to create the derivative work under first >>> sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the >>> contract would not apply to you. > > >>The only way to *create* a derivative work is with >>permission of the copyright owner of the original work. >>Period. This permission can come implicitly *if* you agree >>with licensing terms, but not under first sale or fair use >>*limitations*. (First sale / fair use are statutory >>limitations on copyrights, not rights). > > >Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that >uses a library creates a derivative work of that library? No. Compiling and linking are mechanical, non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a collective work where the real intellectually-novel work was to select what goes into the collective. >Wouldn't you agree that this is the normal form of use of a >library? And doesn't first sale give you the right to normal >use of a work you have legally acquired? Yes. And yes, if you buy a copy of the library, yes (but notice: not if you downloaded it for free from the Net). > >There are many ways you can lawfully create a derivative work >without explicit permission of the copyright holder. One No. The copyright law states that the copyright owner has the monopolistic right to create derivative works. >clear case is when you lawfully possess the work, there is no >EULA or shrink-wrap agreement, and you need to produce a >derivative work to use the work in the ordinary fashion. No... Try writing a book with Harry Potter as your main character and JKR's lawyers will be at your door soon. >This is, by the way, the FSF's own position. It's not >something I'm making up or guessing at. Please send us some pointers to this statements for the FSF. >"The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to >acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify >GPL'd software. All of those activities are either forbidden Wrong again. GPL, section 0, para 1: "Activities other than copying, distribution, and *modification* are not covered by this License". Emphasis mine. >or controlled by proprietary software firms, so they require >you to accept a license, including contractual provisions >outside the reach of copyright, before you can use their >works. The free software movement thinks all those >activities are rights, which all users ought to have; we >don't even want to cover those activities by license." Except for the modification part, which *is* the scope of regular, Berne-convention-molded copyrights law. >Now we draw different conclusions based on this, but we agree >on this. You do not need to agree to the GPL to create >derivative works. No, we disagree on this too. >>If you will keep your copy and registration # of windows, >>yes, you *must* wipe out the machine before selling it. > > >Since there is no copy or registration number of a GPL'd work >to keep, this actually argues the reverse of what I said. If >I legally acquire ten copies of Windows, I can perform normal >use on those ten copies and then transfer those copies to >someone else. This is not the point: you still would have to wipe your ten computers clean if you want to sell the ten copies you have. In the GPL'd case, if you disregard the terms of the license, you can still keep, use, etc. You can *not* copy it, distribute it, or modify it tough. >>The point is moot, anyway, because the image is *not* a >>derivative work: It is a copy of the work, made by automated >>and automatable processes. It's not a creation of the >>spirit. > > >I don't think this makes a difference. If it's a derivative >work, it's one created in the course of ordinary use. In any >event, first sale would be the same either way. The point is: it's *not* a derivative work. period. Yes, first sale would apply to the same extent that it applies to the original software. >>So, no, when you get a WinXP CD from Microsoft, you have >>absolutely *no* rights to create derivative works. If a >>person creates a derivative work, even if it does not >>distribute it, it would be infringing on MS's copyrights and >>I would not want to be in said person's shoes, if someone in >>the legal department of MS wakes up in the wrong side of the >>bed. > > >But you do have the right to create derivative works if such >derivative works are necessarily created in the process of >the ordinary use of the work. Ok, let's repeat ourselves: A derivative work is a novel intellectual creation (of the spirit) that results from some transformation of another work, said the "original" work. There is a similar (identical?) definition on 17 USC, but I am quoting (bad translation mine) our "Lei 9610/98 -- Lei de Direitos Autorais" (1998 Brazilian Author's Rights Act), art. 5º, VIII, 'g'. I can't think of any example where to use a
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:14:17PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: > No one will ever do that. If you are distributing the software I released > under GPL, be sure I _will_ sue you if you break the licence. What do you > want from me? A promise I won't sue you if you don't? That is implicit > in the existance of the licence. > > Are you implying debian will stop distributing _any_ software unless > the all the copyright holders of GPL software "explicitly say" they > won't sue you? Well, we won't distribute binaries placed under the GPL, definitively not. And if there is a dubious case, we ask for clarification of the author. > >As an example, i package the unicorn driver for the bewan soft-ADSL pci and > >usb modems. These being soft-ADSL modems which use a non-free binary-only > >ADSL > >emulating library, but are otherwise GPL, i discussed the matter with > >upstream, and after council from debian-legal, and possibly the FSF people > >themselves, we got to use this as GPL exception : > > > > In addition, as a special exception, BeWAN systems gives permission > > to link the code of this program with the modem SW library > > (modem_ant_PCI.o, modem_ant_USB.o), and distribute linked combinations > > including the two. You are also given permission to redistribute the > > modem SW library (modem_ant_PCI.o, modem_ant_USB.o) with the rest of the > > code. > > You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of > > the code used other than the modem SW library. > > This is different. They are not giving the source at all. The licence > for those object files _has_ to be different. _They_ want it to be > different. Sure, but in this case, the binary firmware blob is also a binary without sources. If they really did write said firmware directly as it is, then they should say so, but this is contrary to everyone's expectation, and a dangerous precedent to set. > >So, really, i doubt any manufacturer distributing non-free firmware would > >really have trouble in adding to their licence something like this : > > > > In addition, , considers the firmware blob, identified as > > <...>, as > > a non-derivative piece of work, and thus not covered by the GPL of the > > rest > > of it. gives permission to distribute said firmware blob as > > part of the linux kernel module driver for their hardware. The actual > > syntax > > of the inclusion of the code is still covered by the GPL, as is the rest > > of > > the driver code. > > This is fine with me. It is the existance of legal threats versus > debian I don't agree upon. Notice that debian can't afford to be sued even if they are right, so ... > >>Yes, but it does not apply to our case here. There's no "all other > >>copyright holders". _You_ stated that the firmware is included by mere > >>aggregation, so there's no other holders involved. We're talking > >>about the firmware case. A is one or two well identified subjects. > >>And A wrote it is GPL'ed. Whether you agree or not, that's the licence > >>A chose. A placed the copyright notice. > > > >This is where i would need legal counsel, as to whether this means C or > >someone else may stop you from distributing unless you provide the source. > >And > >the real problem is that A didn't state anything, so we are only working on > >the assumption that this may be the case, and A can change its mind later, > >and > >the costs to defend ourselves in front of a judge, even if your > >interpretations are right, are enough prohibitive for debian not to > >distribute > >said files. > > A did put a GPL notice on it. He can't change his mind later. Then he should give us the source. > >>The licence is a matter between A and D. A may sue D and D may (less > >>likely) sue A, if conditions are not met. I'm not sure at all GPL > >>is enforceable by D upon A. Let's assume it is, for sake of discussion, > >>anyway. > > > >Ah, but the licence is transitive, and if D may sue A, then C may also sue > >D, > >since the GPL makes no distinction between who makes the distribution, > >apart > >from the fact that A may relicence its code. But if he distributes it as > >part > >of the GPL ... > > Pardon me, I have no idea of what a "transitive" licence could be. > Sublicencing or relicencing is _explicitly_ not covered by GPL anyway. You give away the source to someone, he has the same rights you had, except relicencing, this is what i meant by transitive. > Also I have no idea of what you mean "GPL makes no distinction between > who makes the distribution". GPL for sure places no restrictions on > how A can distribute his software. A needs no license for exercising No, it gives A the choice to distribute its software under the GPL, or under another licence. > rights on the software. He is the _owner_ of rights. A cannot "break" > the GPL. A needs no GPL to distribute. Are you saying A may sue himself? Yes, he can break the commonly accepted expectation of a GPLed software, which is what happens
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> David Schwartz wrote: > > > This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the > > license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create > > the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the > > restrictions in the contract would not apply to you. > The only way to *create* a derivative work is with permission of the > copyright owner of the original work. Period. This permission can come > implicitly *if* you agree with licensing terms, but not under first sale > or fair use *limitations*. (First sale / fair use are statutory > limitations on copyrights, not rights). Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that uses a library creates a derivative work of that library? Wouldn't you agree that this is the normal form of use of a library? And doesn't first sale give you the right to normal use of a work you have legally acquired? There are many ways you can lawfully create a derivative work without explicit permission of the copyright holder. One clear case is when you lawfully possess the work, there is no EULA or shrink-wrap agreement, and you need to produce a derivative work to use the work in the ordinary fashion. This is, by the way, the FSF's own position. It's not something I'm making up or guessing at. "The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify GPL'd software. All of those activities are either forbidden or controlled by proprietary software firms, so they require you to accept a license, including contractual provisions outside the reach of copyright, before you can use their works. The free software movement thinks all those activities are rights, which all users ought to have; we don't even want to cover those activities by license." Now we draw different conclusions based on this, but we agree on this. You do not need to agree to the GPL to create derivative works. > If you will keep your copy and registration # of windows, yes, > you *must* wipe out the machine before selling it. Since there is no copy or registration number of a GPL'd work to keep, this actually argues the reverse of what I said. If I legally acquire ten copies of Windows, I can perform normal use on those ten copies and then transfer those copies to someone else. > The point is moot, anyway, because the image is *not* a > derivative work: It is a copy of the work, made by automated > and automatable processes. It's not a creation of the spirit. I don't think this makes a difference. If it's a derivative work, it's one created in the course of ordinary use. In any event, first sale would be the same either way. > So, no, when you get a WinXP CD from Microsoft, you have > absolutely *no* rights to create derivative works. If a person > creates a derivative work, even if it does not distribute it, > it would be infringing on MS's copyrights and I would not want > to be in said person's shoes, if someone in the legal > department of MS wakes up in the wrong side of the bed. But you do have the right to create derivative works if such derivative works are necessarily created in the process of the ordinary use of the work. I think that if I write software that runs under Windows, an argument can be made that that software is a derivative work of Windows. That argument is as strong as the argument that a driver with linked in firmware is a single work. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote: > > If you buy a W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work, > > e.g. an image > > of your installation, under the fair use rights (IANAL). Can you > > distribute > > that image freely? > > I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership of > the > image to someone else. The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA. > And if you legally acquired two copies of Windows, > you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise, you could not > sell a machine with the Windows OS installed unless you were a Microsoft > OEM. Then it would be stupid to become a OEM. Just buy one CD and install it on each computer you sell, combined with a pre-installed ghost. > Does Microsoft take the position that if you want to sell your PC, you > must wipe the OS? Not that I know of. They say it's forbidden do pass even the boot loader you put on disks, they just won't sue you for just the boot loader. -- Funny quotes: 36. You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive. Friß, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> > > The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA. > > Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely > > upheld in the USA. > > If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them. > http://www.freibrunlaw.com/articles/articl22.htm This wasn't a copyright case. The court only refused to uphold the agreement because there was no oppurtunity to review the agreement before purchase. So it certainly wouldn't apply to a click-through type agreement. This is also one ruling by a district court, and the ruling is in the process of being appealed. Anyone relying on this and ignoring a EULA would be foolish indeed. There are several other shrink-wrap cases where courts have enforced the agreements. See, for example, Hill v. Gateway 2000 and Mortgage Plus v. DocMagic. It is reasonable to describe this area as somewhat uncertain. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:44:29AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership > > of the image to someone else. And if you legally acquired two copies of > > Windows, you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise, > > you could not sell a machine with the Windows OS installed unless you > > were a Microsoft OEM. Does Microsoft take the position that if you want > > to sell your PC, you must wipe the OS? Not that I know of. > [1] I think you've confused Microsoft's Original Equipment Manufacturer > License with Microsoft's End User License Agreement. I wasn't talking about the specific terms of any agreement. I was just saying that to make this analogous to the GPL situation (which was the point of this example), you would have to ignore any shrink-wrap agreement because the GPL is not a shrink-wrap agreement and the rules for shrink-wrap agreements are totally different from the rules for license. > [2] The grounds for Microsoft's EULA are much weaker than the grounds > for the GPL restrctions on the production of derivative works. That doesn't matter, the GPL doesn't set the scope of its own authority. None of what I'm saying has anything to do with the text of the GPL because the GPL can only add new rights. I'm talking strictly about the rights you automatically have if you legally possess the work under fair use and first sale. > At least with the GPL, you're getting something you didn't already have > (rights restricted to the copyright holder -- for example, in the states, > under 17 USC 106). Yes, the GPL can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have. A EULA can take away rights you would otherwise have. > With Microsoft's EULA, it's not clear that you're getting anything > in exchange for complying with the copyright -- at least not in the > U.S. which is where Microsoft is based. You already have a number of > rights (17 USC 107, 17 USC 117), and while the DMCA has put into law > that you can't bypass copyright protection (17 USC 1201), it seems to > allow bypassing technological defects which would prevent actions allowed > under copyright. > It's probably worth noting that legal actions based on Microsoft's > EULA are settled out of court -- Microsoft has a history putting a > lot of direct and indirect pressure on people charged with violating > the agreement and, in the rare case where someone has stood up to the > pressure, of cutting their losses and settling out of court. In the few court cases that have directly addresses shrink-wrap and click-wrap type agreements, I've seen them consistently upheld. However, this is not relevent to the GPL issue at all because the GPL can only give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have, it cannot take away any rights. If you legally acquire a work free of any shrink-wrap agreement, and this goes for all GPL'd works, you can use it. This includes any steps necessary for ordinary use, including making derivative works if that's part of the ordinary, expected use. You can also transfer any legally-acquired copy you might have, along with any and all derivative works you made in the process of ordinary use. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > Yes, the GPL can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have. A > EULA can take away rights you would otherwise have. What compels you to agree with an EULA? > In the few court cases that have directly addresses shrink-wrap and > click-wrap type agreements, I've seen them consistently upheld. However, > this is not relevent to the GPL issue at all because the GPL can only give > you rights you wouldn't otherwise have, it cannot take away any rights. The GPL offers you certain rights if you agree to be bound by certain conditions. You are not compelled to agree to those conditions, but those who do not gain no rights from the GPL. -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:01:15PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that uses > a library creates a derivative work of that library? No, I would not. Creating a derivative work requires creativity, and a linker is not creative. The copyright issues for the linked program are the copyright issues for the unlinked program. Of course, you might have evidence in the form of a linked program where you don't have evidence in the form of an unlinked program. But that's a practical issue, not a copyright issue. > And doesn't first sale give you the right to normal use of a work you > have legally acquired? The first sale doctrine (basically, 17 USC 109) doesn't really say that. > There are many ways you can lawfully create a derivative work without > explicit permission of the copyright holder. One clear case is when you > lawfully possess the work, there is no EULA or shrink-wrap agreement, and > you need to produce a derivative work to use the work in the ordinary > fashion. I don't think the words you're using mean what you think they mean. I'm just going to quote part of 17 USC 106 at you. "... the owner of copyright ... has the exclusive rights to ... prepare derivative works ...". Go look it up yourself if you think the text I've omitted makes it mean something different. -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote: > > The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA. > > Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely upheld in the > USA. > If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them. http://www.freibrunlaw.com/articles/articl22.htm -- Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say: 90. Wowthat seemed _fast_. Friß, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote: > > > If you buy a W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work, > > > e.g. an image > > > of your installation, under the fair use rights (IANAL). Can you > > > distribute > > > that image freely? > > I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer > > ownership of the > > image to someone else. > The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA. Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely upheld in the USA. If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them. > > And if you legally acquired two copies of Windows, > > you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise, > > you could not > > sell a machine with the Windows OS installed unless you were a Microsoft > > OEM. > Then it would be stupid to become a OEM. Just buy one CD and > install it on > each computer you sell, combined with a pre-installed ghost. You can only transfer each legally acquired copy once. The nice thing about GPL'd works is you can easily legally acquire as many copies as you want. But for works that are sold for a price, you have to legally acquire one copy for each one you transfer. *You* cannot increase the number of copies of the work, only a lawful distributor of the work can. If you don't want to be bound by the GPL and you want to give ten friends copies of a Linux install disk, you could download ten copies of that disk from an FTP site, transfer them each to a floppy and destroy all other copies. You could then give those copies away under first sale rights. However, technically, if you gave out eleven copies and only legally acquired nine, you are exceeding your rights under first sale. > > Does Microsoft take the position that if you want to sell your PC, you > > must wipe the OS? Not that I know of. > They say it's forbidden do pass even the boot loader you put on disks, > they just won't sue you for just the boot loader. Right, but in these cases the number of copies of the work is increased by the person. In the case of most GPL'd work, you can find any number of web sites that will do this for you. They have to comply with the GPL but you don't. (You don't have to agree to the GPL to lawfully acquire as many copies of the work as you want. Each copy can be lawfully transferred to another under first sale rights.) If you acquire a copy of a GPL'd work that is sold for a price, and you only buy one copy, you cannot make and distribute additional copies without complying with the GPL. Each lawfully-acquired copy can be transferred, however. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:44:29AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership > of the image to someone else. And if you legally acquired two copies of > Windows, you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise, > you could not sell a machine with the Windows OS installed unless you > were a Microsoft OEM. Does Microsoft take the position that if you want > to sell your PC, you must wipe the OS? Not that I know of. [1] I think you've confused Microsoft's Original Equipment Manufacturer License with Microsoft's End User License Agreement. [2] The grounds for Microsoft's EULA are much weaker than the grounds for the GPL restrctions on the production of derivative works. At least with the GPL, you're getting something you didn't already have (rights restricted to the copyright holder -- for example, in the states, under 17 USC 106). With Microsoft's EULA, it's not clear that you're getting anything in exchange for complying with the copyright -- at least not in the U.S. which is where Microsoft is based. You already have a number of rights (17 USC 107, 17 USC 117), and while the DMCA has put into law that you can't bypass copyright protection (17 USC 1201), it seems to allow bypassing technological defects which would prevent actions allowed under copyright. It's probably worth noting that legal actions based on Microsoft's EULA are settled out of court -- Microsoft has a history putting a lot of direct and indirect pressure on people charged with violating the agreement and, in the rare case where someone has stood up to the pressure, of cutting their losses and settling out of court. -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
David Schwartz wrote: >>David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you buy a >>W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work, e.g. an >>image of your installation, under the fair use rights >>(IANAL). Can you distribute that image freely? >> > >I would say that if not for the EULA, you could >transfer ownership of the image to someone else. And if you >legally acquired two copies of Windows, you could install >both of them and transfer them. Otherwise, you could not sell >a machine with the Windows OS installed unless you were a >Microsoft OEM. Does Microsoft take the position that if you >want to sell your PC, you must wipe the OS? Not that I know >of. > >DS If you will keep your copy and registration # of windows, yes, you *must* wipe out the machine before selling it. The point is moot, anyway, because the image is *not* a derivative work: It is a copy of the work, made by automated and automatable processes. It's not a creation of the spirit. So, no, when you get a WinXP CD from Microsoft, you have absolutely *no* rights to create derivative works. If a person creates a derivative work, even if it does not distribute it, it would be infringing on MS's copyrights and I would not want to be in said person's shoes, if someone in the legal department of MS wakes up in the wrong side of the bed. HTH, Massa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of > >>derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common, > >>for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work > >>that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not > >>distribute) the derivative work. > > This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to > > the license > > to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create the > > derivative > > work under first sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the > > contract would not apply to you. > If you buy a W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work, > e.g. an image > of your installation, under the fair use rights (IANAL). Can you > distribute > that image freely? I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership of the image to someone else. And if you legally acquired two copies of Windows, you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise, you could not sell a machine with the Windows OS installed unless you were a Microsoft OEM. Does Microsoft take the position that if you want to sell your PC, you must wipe the OS? Not that I know of. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote: On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:40:48AM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: Which reminds me. The only reason why this thread belongs here, IMHO, it's because when it comes to GPL, it really doesn't matter what FSF's interpretation is, or anyone else's. The authors are choosing GPL as a license, so _thier_ interpretation is what really matters. The main problem is that i feel that those binary firmware copyright holders may have put it under the GPL, but i doubt they realize that this means they have to release the source code of said firmware blobs. They released it not in object format, but in the C language. An hexstring, agreed, but still C. The copyright holders can release their work how they please. If you think GPL can place restrictions on what they can do, please see below. Also, i believe you are wrong in the above, the only interpretation that is important is the one the judge will take in case someone goes to suing. Agreed, let me rephrase then. The only interpretation that is important _to the judge_ is the one of the parties involved. In any agreement, the parties express their will. Here, the holders "wrote" the agreement alone, so _their_ interpretation counts. That is, their interpretation as it was when they licenced the software. Not as is it after later thinking (or acquisition by some bad guy). And finally, if anyone could claim that a binary is the prefered form of modification, which is most of the time obviously false, then the GPL would be worthless. And anyway, the GPL states this (first paragraph after subclause c in clause 3) : I don't care about GPL being worthless. This is not the GPL advocacy list. I'm just saying that if you distribute the source in the form the author published it, you can't be sued by him for breaking GPL. That's what any linux distro and its mirrors are doing. The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. So, this is not some interpretation of the GPL by the FSF, and since it is written black on white in the actual GPL text, i don't think there is any doubt what a judge will decice : judge : so, to create this piece of work, what do you use to make modifications ? A (having sworn on the bible to say the truth and only the truth) : euh, some C or asm code, and a compiler or assembler to compile it. judge : and you did voluntarily place said code and distribute it under the GPL ? A : yes, it was going into the linux kernel, so ... judge : so you should distribute the source code to your work also, and distributing it under GPL is a breach of expectation from whoever you distribute it to. Or something such. Again, I'm not following. The author release the source under GPL. You can't release a binary under GPL, it makes no sense. So there's no "so you should distribute the source code to your work _also_". You released a software, it the form you claimed to be the source. You like LISP, you release it in LISP. You like C, you release it in C. You like hexcode, you release it in hexcode. No one can ask you to change it. You seems to keep forgetting what GPL is. It's a licence. The copyright holders grant some rights to third parties, _if_ they comply to some conditions. Conditions are all placed on the third parties, including the source disclosure one (source of _modifications_). There is no condition the _holders_ have to meet. It'd be a nonsense. The GPL says: "I grant you a right if you do this." and not: "I grant you a right if _I_ do this.". GPL doesn't backfire. Again, IANAL, but I see little room for "interpretation" here. If A is going to say that he is the only author, and that he would never sue because of this breach of the GPL, he could just as well have put it under a different licence, or put a small disclaimer about it, since we cannot really act as if we believed that A would never sue us, if he doesn't explicitly say so. No one will ever do that. If you are distributing the software I released under GPL, be sure I _will_ sue you if you break the licence. What do you want from me? A promise I won't sue you if you don't? That is implicit in the existance of the licence. Are you implying debian will stop distributing _any_ software unless the all the copyright holders of GPL software "explicitly say" they won't sue you? As an example, i package the unicorn driver for the bewan soft-ADSL pci and usb modems. These being soft-ADSL modems which use a non-free binary-only ADSL emulating library, but are otherwise GPL, i discussed the matter with upstream, and after council from debian-legal, and possibly the FSF people themselves, we got to use this as GPL exception : In addition, as a special exception, BeWAN systems gives
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
David Schwartz wrote: This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the contract would not apply to you. The only way to *create* a derivative work is with permission of the copyright owner of the original work. Period. This permission can come implicitly *if* you agree with licensing terms, but not under first sale or fair use *limitations*. (First sale / fair use are statutory limitations on copyrights, not rights). Massa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of >>derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common, >>for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work >>that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not >>distribute) the derivative work. > > This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the license > to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create the derivative > work under first sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the > contract would not apply to you. If you buy a W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work, e.g. an image of your installation, under the fair use rights (IANAL). Can you distribute that image freely? -- Friendly fire isn't. Friß, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:40:48AM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: > Which reminds me. The only reason why this thread belongs here, IMHO, > it's because when it comes to GPL, it really doesn't matter what > FSF's interpretation is, or anyone else's. The authors are choosing > GPL as a license, so _thier_ interpretation is what really matters. The main problem is that i feel that those binary firmware copyright holders may have put it under the GPL, but i doubt they realize that this means they have to release the source code of said firmware blobs. Also, i believe you are wrong in the above, the only interpretation that is important is the one the judge will take in case someone goes to suing. And finally, if anyone could claim that a binary is the prefered form of modification, which is most of the time obviously false, then the GPL would be worthless. And anyway, the GPL states this (first paragraph after subclause c in clause 3) : The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. So, this is not some interpretation of the GPL by the FSF, and since it is written black on white in the actual GPL text, i don't think there is any doubt what a judge will decice : judge : so, to create this piece of work, what do you use to make modifications ? A (having sworn on the bible to say the truth and only the truth) : euh, some C or asm code, and a compiler or assembler to compile it. judge : and you did voluntarily place said code and distribute it under the GPL ? A : yes, it was going into the linux kernel, so ... judge : so you should distribute the source code to your work also, and distributing it under GPL is a breach of expectation from whoever you distribute it to. Or something such. If A is going to say that he is the only author, and that he would never sue because of this breach of the GPL, he could just as well have put it under a different licence, or put a small disclaimer about it, since we cannot really act as if we believed that A would never sue us, if he doesn't explicitly say so. As an example, i package the unicorn driver for the bewan soft-ADSL pci and usb modems. These being soft-ADSL modems which use a non-free binary-only ADSL emulating library, but are otherwise GPL, i discussed the matter with upstream, and after council from debian-legal, and possibly the FSF people themselves, we got to use this as GPL exception : In addition, as a special exception, BeWAN systems gives permission to link the code of this program with the modem SW library (modem_ant_PCI.o, modem_ant_USB.o), and distribute linked combinations including the two. You are also given permission to redistribute the modem SW library (modem_ant_PCI.o, modem_ant_USB.o) with the rest of the code. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the code used other than the modem SW library. So, really, i doubt any manufacturer distributing non-free firmware would really have trouble in adding to their licence something like this : In addition, , considers the firmware blob, identified as <...>, as a non-derivative piece of work, and thus not covered by the GPL of the rest of it. gives permission to distribute said firmware blob as part of the linux kernel module driver for their hardware. The actual syntax of the inclusion of the code is still covered by the GPL, as is the rest of the driver code. If we where to get something as nicely pu as this, provide a patch, asking the manufacturer to sign it of, then all issues would be void, i believe. > >>says so and it's A granting D the right to distribute. There's no way C > >>can prevent D from distributing A's software, if A is fine with it. > >>It's up to A to decide if GPL conditions are met by D. > > > >Even in that case, you still need explicit permission of A, and all the > >other > >copyright holders of the rest of the GPLed work, to give you an explicit > >exception to link with this non-free bit of code. > > Yes, but it does not apply to our case here. There's no "all other > copyright holders". _You_ stated that the firmware is included by mere > aggregation, so there's no other holders involved. We're talking > about the firmware case. A is one or two well identified subjects. > And A wrote it is GPL'ed. Whether you agree or not, that's the licence > A chose. A placed the copyright notice. This is where i would need legal counsel, as to whether this means C or someone else may stop you from distributing unless you provide the source. And the real problem is that A didn't state anything, so we are only working on the assumption that this may be the case, and A can change its mind later, and the costs to
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:40:48AM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: Which reminds me. The only reason why this thread belongs here, IMHO, it's because when it comes to GPL, it really doesn't matter what FSF's interpretation is, or anyone else's. The authors are choosing GPL as a license, so _thier_ interpretation is what really matters. The main problem is that i feel that those binary firmware copyright holders may have put it under the GPL, but i doubt they realize that this means they have to release the source code of said firmware blobs. Also, i believe you are wrong in the above, the only interpretation that is important is the one the judge will take in case someone goes to suing. And finally, if anyone could claim that a binary is the prefered form of modification, which is most of the time obviously false, then the GPL would be worthless. And anyway, the GPL states this (first paragraph after subclause c in clause 3) : The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. So, this is not some interpretation of the GPL by the FSF, and since it is written black on white in the actual GPL text, i don't think there is any doubt what a judge will decice : judge : so, to create this piece of work, what do you use to make modifications ? A (having sworn on the bible to say the truth and only the truth) : euh, some C or asm code, and a compiler or assembler to compile it. judge : and you did voluntarily place said code and distribute it under the GPL ? A : yes, it was going into the linux kernel, so ... judge : so you should distribute the source code to your work also, and distributing it under GPL is a breach of expectation from whoever you distribute it to. Or something such. If A is going to say that he is the only author, and that he would never sue because of this breach of the GPL, he could just as well have put it under a different licence, or put a small disclaimer about it, since we cannot really act as if we believed that A would never sue us, if he doesn't explicitly say so. As an example, i package the unicorn driver for the bewan soft-ADSL pci and usb modems. These being soft-ADSL modems which use a non-free binary-only ADSL emulating library, but are otherwise GPL, i discussed the matter with upstream, and after council from debian-legal, and possibly the FSF people themselves, we got to use this as GPL exception : In addition, as a special exception, BeWAN systems gives permission to link the code of this program with the modem SW library (modem_ant_PCI.o, modem_ant_USB.o), and distribute linked combinations including the two. You are also given permission to redistribute the modem SW library (modem_ant_PCI.o, modem_ant_USB.o) with the rest of the code. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the code used other than the modem SW library. So, really, i doubt any manufacturer distributing non-free firmware would really have trouble in adding to their licence something like this : In addition, manufacturer, considers the firmware blob, identified as ..., as a non-derivative piece of work, and thus not covered by the GPL of the rest of it. manufacturer gives permission to distribute said firmware blob as part of the linux kernel module driver for their hardware. The actual syntax of the inclusion of the code is still covered by the GPL, as is the rest of the driver code. If we where to get something as nicely pu as this, provide a patch, asking the manufacturer to sign it of, then all issues would be void, i believe. says so and it's A granting D the right to distribute. There's no way C can prevent D from distributing A's software, if A is fine with it. It's up to A to decide if GPL conditions are met by D. Even in that case, you still need explicit permission of A, and all the other copyright holders of the rest of the GPLed work, to give you an explicit exception to link with this non-free bit of code. Yes, but it does not apply to our case here. There's no all other copyright holders. _You_ stated that the firmware is included by mere aggregation, so there's no other holders involved. We're talking about the firmware case. A is one or two well identified subjects. And A wrote it is GPL'ed. Whether you agree or not, that's the licence A chose. A placed the copyright notice. This is where i would need legal counsel, as to whether this means C or someone else may stop you from distributing unless you provide the source. And the real problem is that A didn't state anything, so we are only working on the assumption that this may be the case, and A can change its mind later, and the costs to defend
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common, for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not distribute) the derivative work. This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the contract would not apply to you. If you buy a W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work, e.g. an image of your installation, under the fair use rights (IANAL). Can you distribute that image freely? -- Friendly fire isn't. Friß, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
David Schwartz wrote: This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the contract would not apply to you. The only way to *create* a derivative work is with permission of the copyright owner of the original work. Period. This permission can come implicitly *if* you agree with licensing terms, but not under first sale or fair use *limitations*. (First sale / fair use are statutory limitations on copyrights, not rights). Massa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote: On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:40:48AM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: Which reminds me. The only reason why this thread belongs here, IMHO, it's because when it comes to GPL, it really doesn't matter what FSF's interpretation is, or anyone else's. The authors are choosing GPL as a license, so _thier_ interpretation is what really matters. The main problem is that i feel that those binary firmware copyright holders may have put it under the GPL, but i doubt they realize that this means they have to release the source code of said firmware blobs. They released it not in object format, but in the C language. An hexstring, agreed, but still C. The copyright holders can release their work how they please. If you think GPL can place restrictions on what they can do, please see below. Also, i believe you are wrong in the above, the only interpretation that is important is the one the judge will take in case someone goes to suing. Agreed, let me rephrase then. The only interpretation that is important _to the judge_ is the one of the parties involved. In any agreement, the parties express their will. Here, the holders wrote the agreement alone, so _their_ interpretation counts. That is, their interpretation as it was when they licenced the software. Not as is it after later thinking (or acquisition by some bad guy). And finally, if anyone could claim that a binary is the prefered form of modification, which is most of the time obviously false, then the GPL would be worthless. And anyway, the GPL states this (first paragraph after subclause c in clause 3) : I don't care about GPL being worthless. This is not the GPL advocacy list. I'm just saying that if you distribute the source in the form the author published it, you can't be sued by him for breaking GPL. That's what any linux distro and its mirrors are doing. The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. So, this is not some interpretation of the GPL by the FSF, and since it is written black on white in the actual GPL text, i don't think there is any doubt what a judge will decice : judge : so, to create this piece of work, what do you use to make modifications ? A (having sworn on the bible to say the truth and only the truth) : euh, some C or asm code, and a compiler or assembler to compile it. judge : and you did voluntarily place said code and distribute it under the GPL ? A : yes, it was going into the linux kernel, so ... judge : so you should distribute the source code to your work also, and distributing it under GPL is a breach of expectation from whoever you distribute it to. Or something such. Again, I'm not following. The author release the source under GPL. You can't release a binary under GPL, it makes no sense. So there's no so you should distribute the source code to your work _also_. You released a software, it the form you claimed to be the source. You like LISP, you release it in LISP. You like C, you release it in C. You like hexcode, you release it in hexcode. No one can ask you to change it. You seems to keep forgetting what GPL is. It's a licence. The copyright holders grant some rights to third parties, _if_ they comply to some conditions. Conditions are all placed on the third parties, including the source disclosure one (source of _modifications_). There is no condition the _holders_ have to meet. It'd be a nonsense. The GPL says: I grant you a right if you do this. and not: I grant you a right if _I_ do this.. GPL doesn't backfire. Again, IANAL, but I see little room for interpretation here. If A is going to say that he is the only author, and that he would never sue because of this breach of the GPL, he could just as well have put it under a different licence, or put a small disclaimer about it, since we cannot really act as if we believed that A would never sue us, if he doesn't explicitly say so. No one will ever do that. If you are distributing the software I released under GPL, be sure I _will_ sue you if you break the licence. What do you want from me? A promise I won't sue you if you don't? That is implicit in the existance of the licence. Are you implying debian will stop distributing _any_ software unless the all the copyright holders of GPL software explicitly say they won't sue you? As an example, i package the unicorn driver for the bewan soft-ADSL pci and usb modems. These being soft-ADSL modems which use a non-free binary-only ADSL emulating library, but are otherwise GPL, i discussed the matter with upstream, and after council from debian-legal, and possibly the FSF people themselves, we got to use this as GPL exception : In addition, as a special exception, BeWAN systems gives permission to
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common, for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not distribute) the derivative work. This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the contract would not apply to you. If you buy a W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work, e.g. an image of your installation, under the fair use rights (IANAL). Can you distribute that image freely? I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership of the image to someone else. And if you legally acquired two copies of Windows, you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise, you could not sell a machine with the Windows OS installed unless you were a Microsoft OEM. Does Microsoft take the position that if you want to sell your PC, you must wipe the OS? Not that I know of. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
David Schwartz wrote: David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you buy a W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work, e.g. an image of your installation, under the fair use rights (IANAL). Can you distribute that image freely? I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership of the image to someone else. And if you legally acquired two copies of Windows, you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise, you could not sell a machine with the Windows OS installed unless you were a Microsoft OEM. Does Microsoft take the position that if you want to sell your PC, you must wipe the OS? Not that I know of. DS If you will keep your copy and registration # of windows, yes, you *must* wipe out the machine before selling it. The point is moot, anyway, because the image is *not* a derivative work: It is a copy of the work, made by automated and automatable processes. It's not a creation of the spirit. So, no, when you get a WinXP CD from Microsoft, you have absolutely *no* rights to create derivative works. If a person creates a derivative work, even if it does not distribute it, it would be infringing on MS's copyrights and I would not want to be in said person's shoes, if someone in the legal department of MS wakes up in the wrong side of the bed. HTH, Massa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:44:29AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership of the image to someone else. And if you legally acquired two copies of Windows, you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise, you could not sell a machine with the Windows OS installed unless you were a Microsoft OEM. Does Microsoft take the position that if you want to sell your PC, you must wipe the OS? Not that I know of. [1] I think you've confused Microsoft's Original Equipment Manufacturer License with Microsoft's End User License Agreement. [2] The grounds for Microsoft's EULA are much weaker than the grounds for the GPL restrctions on the production of derivative works. At least with the GPL, you're getting something you didn't already have (rights restricted to the copyright holder -- for example, in the states, under 17 USC 106). With Microsoft's EULA, it's not clear that you're getting anything in exchange for complying with the copyright -- at least not in the U.S. which is where Microsoft is based. You already have a number of rights (17 USC 107, 17 USC 117), and while the DMCA has put into law that you can't bypass copyright protection (17 USC 1201), it seems to allow bypassing technological defects which would prevent actions allowed under copyright. It's probably worth noting that legal actions based on Microsoft's EULA are settled out of court -- Microsoft has a history putting a lot of direct and indirect pressure on people charged with violating the agreement and, in the rare case where someone has stood up to the pressure, of cutting their losses and settling out of court. -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote: If you buy a W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work, e.g. an image of your installation, under the fair use rights (IANAL). Can you distribute that image freely? I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership of the image to someone else. The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA. Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely upheld in the USA. If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them. And if you legally acquired two copies of Windows, you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise, you could not sell a machine with the Windows OS installed unless you were a Microsoft OEM. Then it would be stupid to become a OEM. Just buy one CD and install it on each computer you sell, combined with a pre-installed ghost. You can only transfer each legally acquired copy once. The nice thing about GPL'd works is you can easily legally acquire as many copies as you want. But for works that are sold for a price, you have to legally acquire one copy for each one you transfer. *You* cannot increase the number of copies of the work, only a lawful distributor of the work can. If you don't want to be bound by the GPL and you want to give ten friends copies of a Linux install disk, you could download ten copies of that disk from an FTP site, transfer them each to a floppy and destroy all other copies. You could then give those copies away under first sale rights. However, technically, if you gave out eleven copies and only legally acquired nine, you are exceeding your rights under first sale. Does Microsoft take the position that if you want to sell your PC, you must wipe the OS? Not that I know of. They say it's forbidden do pass even the boot loader you put on disks, they just won't sue you for just the boot loader. Right, but in these cases the number of copies of the work is increased by the person. In the case of most GPL'd work, you can find any number of web sites that will do this for you. They have to comply with the GPL but you don't. (You don't have to agree to the GPL to lawfully acquire as many copies of the work as you want. Each copy can be lawfully transferred to another under first sale rights.) If you acquire a copy of a GPL'd work that is sold for a price, and you only buy one copy, you cannot make and distribute additional copies without complying with the GPL. Each lawfully-acquired copy can be transferred, however. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote: The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA. Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely upheld in the USA. If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them. http://www.freibrunlaw.com/articles/articl22.htm -- Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say: 90. Wowthat seemed _fast_. Friß, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:01:15PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that uses a library creates a derivative work of that library? No, I would not. Creating a derivative work requires creativity, and a linker is not creative. The copyright issues for the linked program are the copyright issues for the unlinked program. Of course, you might have evidence in the form of a linked program where you don't have evidence in the form of an unlinked program. But that's a practical issue, not a copyright issue. And doesn't first sale give you the right to normal use of a work you have legally acquired? The first sale doctrine (basically, 17 USC 109) doesn't really say that. There are many ways you can lawfully create a derivative work without explicit permission of the copyright holder. One clear case is when you lawfully possess the work, there is no EULA or shrink-wrap agreement, and you need to produce a derivative work to use the work in the ordinary fashion. I don't think the words you're using mean what you think they mean. I'm just going to quote part of 17 USC 106 at you. ... the owner of copyright ... has the exclusive rights to ... prepare derivative works Go look it up yourself if you think the text I've omitted makes it mean something different. -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: Yes, the GPL can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have. A EULA can take away rights you would otherwise have. What compels you to agree with an EULA? In the few court cases that have directly addresses shrink-wrap and click-wrap type agreements, I've seen them consistently upheld. However, this is not relevent to the GPL issue at all because the GPL can only give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have, it cannot take away any rights. The GPL offers you certain rights if you agree to be bound by certain conditions. You are not compelled to agree to those conditions, but those who do not gain no rights from the GPL. -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:44:29AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership of the image to someone else. And if you legally acquired two copies of Windows, you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise, you could not sell a machine with the Windows OS installed unless you were a Microsoft OEM. Does Microsoft take the position that if you want to sell your PC, you must wipe the OS? Not that I know of. [1] I think you've confused Microsoft's Original Equipment Manufacturer License with Microsoft's End User License Agreement. I wasn't talking about the specific terms of any agreement. I was just saying that to make this analogous to the GPL situation (which was the point of this example), you would have to ignore any shrink-wrap agreement because the GPL is not a shrink-wrap agreement and the rules for shrink-wrap agreements are totally different from the rules for license. [2] The grounds for Microsoft's EULA are much weaker than the grounds for the GPL restrctions on the production of derivative works. That doesn't matter, the GPL doesn't set the scope of its own authority. None of what I'm saying has anything to do with the text of the GPL because the GPL can only add new rights. I'm talking strictly about the rights you automatically have if you legally possess the work under fair use and first sale. At least with the GPL, you're getting something you didn't already have (rights restricted to the copyright holder -- for example, in the states, under 17 USC 106). Yes, the GPL can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have. A EULA can take away rights you would otherwise have. With Microsoft's EULA, it's not clear that you're getting anything in exchange for complying with the copyright -- at least not in the U.S. which is where Microsoft is based. You already have a number of rights (17 USC 107, 17 USC 117), and while the DMCA has put into law that you can't bypass copyright protection (17 USC 1201), it seems to allow bypassing technological defects which would prevent actions allowed under copyright. It's probably worth noting that legal actions based on Microsoft's EULA are settled out of court -- Microsoft has a history putting a lot of direct and indirect pressure on people charged with violating the agreement and, in the rare case where someone has stood up to the pressure, of cutting their losses and settling out of court. In the few court cases that have directly addresses shrink-wrap and click-wrap type agreements, I've seen them consistently upheld. However, this is not relevent to the GPL issue at all because the GPL can only give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have, it cannot take away any rights. If you legally acquire a work free of any shrink-wrap agreement, and this goes for all GPL'd works, you can use it. This includes any steps necessary for ordinary use, including making derivative works if that's part of the ordinary, expected use. You can also transfer any legally-acquired copy you might have, along with any and all derivative works you made in the process of ordinary use. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA. Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely upheld in the USA. If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them. http://www.freibrunlaw.com/articles/articl22.htm This wasn't a copyright case. The court only refused to uphold the agreement because there was no oppurtunity to review the agreement before purchase. So it certainly wouldn't apply to a click-through type agreement. This is also one ruling by a district court, and the ruling is in the process of being appealed. Anyone relying on this and ignoring a EULA would be foolish indeed. There are several other shrink-wrap cases where courts have enforced the agreements. See, for example, Hill v. Gateway 2000 and Mortgage Plus v. DocMagic. It is reasonable to describe this area as somewhat uncertain. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote: If you buy a W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work, e.g. an image of your installation, under the fair use rights (IANAL). Can you distribute that image freely? I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership of the image to someone else. The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA. And if you legally acquired two copies of Windows, you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise, you could not sell a machine with the Windows OS installed unless you were a Microsoft OEM. Then it would be stupid to become a OEM. Just buy one CD and install it on each computer you sell, combined with a pre-installed ghost. Does Microsoft take the position that if you want to sell your PC, you must wipe the OS? Not that I know of. They say it's forbidden do pass even the boot loader you put on disks, they just won't sue you for just the boot loader. -- Funny quotes: 36. You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive. Friß, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
David Schwartz wrote: This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the contract would not apply to you. The only way to *create* a derivative work is with permission of the copyright owner of the original work. Period. This permission can come implicitly *if* you agree with licensing terms, but not under first sale or fair use *limitations*. (First sale / fair use are statutory limitations on copyrights, not rights). Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that uses a library creates a derivative work of that library? Wouldn't you agree that this is the normal form of use of a library? And doesn't first sale give you the right to normal use of a work you have legally acquired? There are many ways you can lawfully create a derivative work without explicit permission of the copyright holder. One clear case is when you lawfully possess the work, there is no EULA or shrink-wrap agreement, and you need to produce a derivative work to use the work in the ordinary fashion. This is, by the way, the FSF's own position. It's not something I'm making up or guessing at. The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify GPL'd software. All of those activities are either forbidden or controlled by proprietary software firms, so they require you to accept a license, including contractual provisions outside the reach of copyright, before you can use their works. The free software movement thinks all those activities are rights, which all users ought to have; we don't even want to cover those activities by license. Now we draw different conclusions based on this, but we agree on this. You do not need to agree to the GPL to create derivative works. If you will keep your copy and registration # of windows, yes, you *must* wipe out the machine before selling it. Since there is no copy or registration number of a GPL'd work to keep, this actually argues the reverse of what I said. If I legally acquire ten copies of Windows, I can perform normal use on those ten copies and then transfer those copies to someone else. The point is moot, anyway, because the image is *not* a derivative work: It is a copy of the work, made by automated and automatable processes. It's not a creation of the spirit. I don't think this makes a difference. If it's a derivative work, it's one created in the course of ordinary use. In any event, first sale would be the same either way. So, no, when you get a WinXP CD from Microsoft, you have absolutely *no* rights to create derivative works. If a person creates a derivative work, even if it does not distribute it, it would be infringing on MS's copyrights and I would not want to be in said person's shoes, if someone in the legal department of MS wakes up in the wrong side of the bed. But you do have the right to create derivative works if such derivative works are necessarily created in the process of the ordinary use of the work. I think that if I write software that runs under Windows, an argument can be made that that software is a derivative work of Windows. That argument is as strong as the argument that a driver with linked in firmware is a single work. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:14:17PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: No one will ever do that. If you are distributing the software I released under GPL, be sure I _will_ sue you if you break the licence. What do you want from me? A promise I won't sue you if you don't? That is implicit in the existance of the licence. Are you implying debian will stop distributing _any_ software unless the all the copyright holders of GPL software explicitly say they won't sue you? Well, we won't distribute binaries placed under the GPL, definitively not. And if there is a dubious case, we ask for clarification of the author. As an example, i package the unicorn driver for the bewan soft-ADSL pci and usb modems. These being soft-ADSL modems which use a non-free binary-only ADSL emulating library, but are otherwise GPL, i discussed the matter with upstream, and after council from debian-legal, and possibly the FSF people themselves, we got to use this as GPL exception : In addition, as a special exception, BeWAN systems gives permission to link the code of this program with the modem SW library (modem_ant_PCI.o, modem_ant_USB.o), and distribute linked combinations including the two. You are also given permission to redistribute the modem SW library (modem_ant_PCI.o, modem_ant_USB.o) with the rest of the code. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the code used other than the modem SW library. This is different. They are not giving the source at all. The licence for those object files _has_ to be different. _They_ want it to be different. Sure, but in this case, the binary firmware blob is also a binary without sources. If they really did write said firmware directly as it is, then they should say so, but this is contrary to everyone's expectation, and a dangerous precedent to set. So, really, i doubt any manufacturer distributing non-free firmware would really have trouble in adding to their licence something like this : In addition, manufacturer, considers the firmware blob, identified as ..., as a non-derivative piece of work, and thus not covered by the GPL of the rest of it. manufacturer gives permission to distribute said firmware blob as part of the linux kernel module driver for their hardware. The actual syntax of the inclusion of the code is still covered by the GPL, as is the rest of the driver code. This is fine with me. It is the existance of legal threats versus debian I don't agree upon. Notice that debian can't afford to be sued even if they are right, so ... Yes, but it does not apply to our case here. There's no all other copyright holders. _You_ stated that the firmware is included by mere aggregation, so there's no other holders involved. We're talking about the firmware case. A is one or two well identified subjects. And A wrote it is GPL'ed. Whether you agree or not, that's the licence A chose. A placed the copyright notice. This is where i would need legal counsel, as to whether this means C or someone else may stop you from distributing unless you provide the source. And the real problem is that A didn't state anything, so we are only working on the assumption that this may be the case, and A can change its mind later, and the costs to defend ourselves in front of a judge, even if your interpretations are right, are enough prohibitive for debian not to distribute said files. A did put a GPL notice on it. He can't change his mind later. Then he should give us the source. The licence is a matter between A and D. A may sue D and D may (less likely) sue A, if conditions are not met. I'm not sure at all GPL is enforceable by D upon A. Let's assume it is, for sake of discussion, anyway. Ah, but the licence is transitive, and if D may sue A, then C may also sue D, since the GPL makes no distinction between who makes the distribution, apart from the fact that A may relicence its code. But if he distributes it as part of the GPL ... Pardon me, I have no idea of what a transitive licence could be. Sublicencing or relicencing is _explicitly_ not covered by GPL anyway. You give away the source to someone, he has the same rights you had, except relicencing, this is what i meant by transitive. Also I have no idea of what you mean GPL makes no distinction between who makes the distribution. GPL for sure places no restrictions on how A can distribute his software. A needs no license for exercising No, it gives A the choice to distribute its software under the GPL, or under another licence. rights on the software. He is the _owner_ of rights. A cannot break the GPL. A needs no GPL to distribute. Are you saying A may sue himself? Yes, he can break the commonly accepted expectation of a GPLed software, which is what happens here. He is free to distribute the software under any other licence he sees fit, which is what i am asking here. No. The source code is
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
David Schwartz wrote: David Schwartz wrote: This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the contract would not apply to you. The only way to *create* a derivative work is with permission of the copyright owner of the original work. Period. This permission can come implicitly *if* you agree with licensing terms, but not under first sale or fair use *limitations*. (First sale / fair use are statutory limitations on copyrights, not rights). Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that uses a library creates a derivative work of that library? No. Compiling and linking are mechanical, non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a collective work where the real intellectually-novel work was to select what goes into the collective. Wouldn't you agree that this is the normal form of use of a library? And doesn't first sale give you the right to normal use of a work you have legally acquired? Yes. And yes, if you buy a copy of the library, yes (but notice: not if you downloaded it for free from the Net). There are many ways you can lawfully create a derivative work without explicit permission of the copyright holder. One No. The copyright law states that the copyright owner has the monopolistic right to create derivative works. clear case is when you lawfully possess the work, there is no EULA or shrink-wrap agreement, and you need to produce a derivative work to use the work in the ordinary fashion. No... Try writing a book with Harry Potter as your main character and JKR's lawyers will be at your door soon. This is, by the way, the FSF's own position. It's not something I'm making up or guessing at. Please send us some pointers to this statements for the FSF. The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify GPL'd software. All of those activities are either forbidden Wrong again. GPL, section 0, para 1: Activities other than copying, distribution, and *modification* are not covered by this License. Emphasis mine. or controlled by proprietary software firms, so they require you to accept a license, including contractual provisions outside the reach of copyright, before you can use their works. The free software movement thinks all those activities are rights, which all users ought to have; we don't even want to cover those activities by license. Except for the modification part, which *is* the scope of regular, Berne-convention-molded copyrights law. Now we draw different conclusions based on this, but we agree on this. You do not need to agree to the GPL to create derivative works. No, we disagree on this too. If you will keep your copy and registration # of windows, yes, you *must* wipe out the machine before selling it. Since there is no copy or registration number of a GPL'd work to keep, this actually argues the reverse of what I said. If I legally acquire ten copies of Windows, I can perform normal use on those ten copies and then transfer those copies to someone else. This is not the point: you still would have to wipe your ten computers clean if you want to sell the ten copies you have. In the GPL'd case, if you disregard the terms of the license, you can still keep, use, etc. You can *not* copy it, distribute it, or modify it tough. The point is moot, anyway, because the image is *not* a derivative work: It is a copy of the work, made by automated and automatable processes. It's not a creation of the spirit. I don't think this makes a difference. If it's a derivative work, it's one created in the course of ordinary use. In any event, first sale would be the same either way. The point is: it's *not* a derivative work. period. Yes, first sale would apply to the same extent that it applies to the original software. So, no, when you get a WinXP CD from Microsoft, you have absolutely *no* rights to create derivative works. If a person creates a derivative work, even if it does not distribute it, it would be infringing on MS's copyrights and I would not want to be in said person's shoes, if someone in the legal department of MS wakes up in the wrong side of the bed. But you do have the right to create derivative works if such derivative works are necessarily created in the process of the ordinary use of the work. Ok, let's repeat ourselves: A derivative work is a novel intellectual creation (of the spirit) that results from some transformation of another work, said the original work. There is a similar (identical?) definition on 17 USC, but I am quoting (bad translation mine) our Lei 9610/98 -- Lei de Direitos Autorais (1998 Brazilian Author's Rights Act), art. 5º, VIII, 'g'. I can't think of any example where to use a work, you must create another work transforming the first. If you can, please enlighten me. Beware: your *spirit*
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 20:45 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: [snip] A did put a GPL notice on it. He can't change his mind later. Then he should give us the source. [snip] The fact remains that those firmware blob have no licence, and thus defacto fall under the GPL. Moreover, the firmare in not in binary form, but is part of a C source file. It is in binary form. Disguised binary form maybe but still binary form. [snip] And where did those hexstrings come from ? It seems to me, that to be consistent with the argument you seem to be presenting concerning binary data in GPLd code, that you also need to be demanding the source hardware design for binary register values. Why not consider the binary firmware in the same category as binary register programming information? You poke these magic bytes into these memory locations and it works. Where do you draw the lines between write this byte to set the input gate here and the output gate to there and write this byte sequence to send the input byte through this loop, into this buffer, add it to the last byte entered, and output it over there? -- Zan Lynx [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:45:43PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: This wasn't a copyright case. The court only refused to uphold the agreement because there was no oppurtunity to review the agreement before purchase. So it certainly wouldn't apply to a click-through type agreement. http://www.answers.com/topic/first-sale-doctrine cites several cases, and has a very nice writeup on the current status of this issue. In essence, you're claiming that the difference between Davidson Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004) and other cases such as Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) is that the presence of a click-through is the determining factor. Of course, it could just as easily be something else (for example, admitting in court agreement with the license). Does this thread have anything to do with the linux kernel at this point? -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:54:50PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: In this case, A is clearly the author (onwer of rights) of the firmware. D is fine on respect of the other A's, since their source is actually (and clearly) there. It's the missing source case we're considering and the number of A's is quite small, the copyright owners of firmware images. Those A's are easily identified, and perfectly able to act. Well, i am not sure with your interpretation, but even if you where right, we have no guarantee that A will continue being lenient, and no guarantee that A will not start suing D or whoever for illegally distributing his stuff without sources. Let's keep things separated. I'm saying that the only one that may sue D is A, not C. If we agree on this, we may abandon the case of a third party sueing D. As for threats coming from A, IMHO D is safe as long as he distributes what A claims the source is, even if it's a hex string. In no world A can publicly state "this is the source" and then sue D because "no, that's not the source" (assuming D is copying it verbatim). So, even if C comes to think D is breaking GPL, all C can do is notify A. The GPL D is supposedly breaking is an agreement between A and D only. On which basis may C sue D? For breaking what agreement? It's up to A to sue D for breaking GPL. This is indeed an interpretation. I am not sure myself if a user receiving GPLed software in binary only fashion as is the case here can sue either D or A to get access to that source code. The point is, if A states (even implicitly) D is distributing the right source, there's nothing C can do to D. D is not breaking GPL, as long A So, i get some random bit of GPLed software, i add a module or some code to it, i distribute that code in binary format only, and claim that i have used an hex editor to write it, or simply that it is the 'right' source. I have some serious doubts that i will not get sued by all the authors of the original GPLed work if i were to do that, and rightly so. No. Please don't throw irrelevant matters in. D is not modifing the software at all. D is a mere distributor. We're not addressing issues related to modification, since no one is going to modify the firmware anyway. This is not a general discussion on GPL. Issues related to modification do not belong to this thread, which already very close to off topic on l-k. Which reminds me. The only reason why this thread belongs here, IMHO, it's because when it comes to GPL, it really doesn't matter what FSF's interpretation is, or anyone else's. The authors are choosing GPL as a license, so _thier_ interpretation is what really matters. says so and it's A granting D the right to distribute. There's no way C can prevent D from distributing A's software, if A is fine with it. It's up to A to decide if GPL conditions are met by D. Even in that case, you still need explicit permission of A, and all the other copyright holders of the rest of the GPLed work, to give you an explicit exception to link with this non-free bit of code. Yes, but it does not apply to our case here. There's no "all other copyright holders". _You_ stated that the firmware is included by mere aggregation, so there's no other holders involved. We're talking about the firmware case. A is one or two well identified subjects. And A wrote it is GPL'ed. Whether you agree or not, that's the licence A chose. A placed the copyright notice. The licence is a matter between A and D. A may sue D and D may (less likely) sue A, if conditions are not met. I'm not sure at all GPL is enforceable by D upon A. Let's assume it is, for sake of discussion, anyway. Now you could argue that any number of authors of GPLed bits of the linux kernel could sue D for distributing their software as a derived work of the binary-only bit, and the fact that D doesn't distribute the source code to the binary bit voids any other right allowed him by the GPL, and thus he has no right to do the distribution at all. The GPL is very clear on this topic. We're not talking of that case. D _is_ actually distributing the right source, according to A. It's C that is unsatisfied with it. No. The source code is clearly the prefered form of modification, not some random intermediate state A may be claiming is source. In this context, it is. Only A may sue D for not distributing the source. Whatever D distributes, D has to make A happy. If A is happy with D distributing `dd if=/dev/random count=1` as source, no one can stop D from doing that. Keep in mind A is the copyright holder. He grants rights to third parties. No one but A can remove them. [...] I'm not following. Are you saying what if A is bought? That is different. Well GPL is quite clear: 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, ... If D is distributing the source as received from A, D is in full compliance. How could A sue D? If A distributed incomplete source in
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:54:50PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: > In this case, A is clearly the author (onwer of rights) of the firmware. > D is fine on respect of the other A's, since their source is actually > (and clearly) there. It's the missing source case we're considering > and the number of A's is quite small, the copyright owners of firmware > images. Those A's are easily identified, and perfectly able to act. Well, i am not sure with your interpretation, but even if you where right, we have no guarantee that A will continue being lenient, and no guarantee that A will not start suing D or whoever for illegally distributing his stuff without sources. > > > So, even if C comes to think D is breaking GPL, all C can do is notify > > > A. The GPL D is supposedly breaking is an agreement between A and D > > > only. On which basis may C sue D? For breaking what agreement? It's up > > > to A to sue D for breaking GPL. > > > > This is indeed an interpretation. I am not sure myself if a user receiving > > GPLed software in binary only fashion as is the case here can sue either D > > or > > A to get access to that source code. > > The point is, if A states (even implicitly) D is distributing the right > source, there's nothing C can do to D. D is not breaking GPL, as long A So, i get some random bit of GPLed software, i add a module or some code to it, i distribute that code in binary format only, and claim that i have used an hex editor to write it, or simply that it is the 'right' source. I have some serious doubts that i will not get sued by all the authors of the original GPLed work if i were to do that, and rightly so. > says so and it's A granting D the right to distribute. There's no way C > can prevent D from distributing A's software, if A is fine with it. > It's up to A to decide if GPL conditions are met by D. Even in that case, you still need explicit permission of A, and all the other copyright holders of the rest of the GPLed work, to give you an explicit exception to link with this non-free bit of code. > Maybe mine it's only one interpretation. But I can't see any other. > > > Now you could argue that any number of authors of GPLed bits of the linux > > kernel could sue D for distributing their software as a derived work of the > > binary-only bit, and the fact that D doesn't distribute the source code to > > the > > binary bit voids any other right allowed him by the GPL, and thus he has no > > right to do the distribution at all. The GPL is very clear on this topic. > > We're not talking of that case. D _is_ actually distributing the right > source, according to A. It's C that is unsatisfied with it. No. The source code is clearly the prefered form of modification, not some random intermediate state A may be claiming is source. > > > What is the risk for D, if D is distributing the source of the software > > > _exactly_ in the form A publicly provides it? It's not up to D to > > > produce the source, all D has to do is to provide verbatim copies of > > > it to anyone D distributes the software to, on request. > > > > Imagine one of those companies got bought up by some predatory company who > > wishes us (linux, debian, redhat/suse, whoever) harm. They would then be > > able > > to sue for damage or prejudice or whatever. And given what i have heard > > about > > the uncertainities of the Alteon ownership, this seems indeed like a > > plausible > > scenario, which could result in a SCO bis case. > > I'm not following. Are you saying what if A is bought? That is > different. Well GPL is quite clear: > > 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source > code as you receive it, ... > > If D is distributing the source as received from A, D is in full > compliance. How could A sue D? If A distributed incomplete source > in the first place, it's not D's fault for sure. Do you really think > the following scenario is likely: > > A to D: you must distribute the complete source, or the license will be > terminated! > D to A: gimme the complete source, and I'll distribute it. > A to D: no, I'm not willing to give you the full source of my firmware, > but you must distribute it anyway! The result is that the code in question has to be stopped from being distributed by D. But the case here is different, since A is not the sole copyright owner, so he doesn't get to set random interpretations of what is source code. > That, in court? Is this really what you're afraid of? > The outcome is, very likely A will be forced to release the full source. > (and D forced to distribute it, but all D's we're talking of here are > very happy with the full disclosure scenario, aren't they?) Imagine A refusing to give away the source code, and D is ordered to remove the incriminated code it is illegally distributing from all its servers, and recall all those thousands of CD and DVD isos containing the code it distributed, and being fined for each day it
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 18:25 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 06:12:22PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: [...] > > A - is the Author (or rights owner) of the software (GPL'ed); > > B - is an user, who got the a copy of the software from A; > > C - is another user, who got a copy indirectly, that is from a > > distributor; > > D - is the distributor C got the copy from. [...] > > Now. It seems to me that the relationship between D (distributor) and C > > (target of the distribution) is _not_ regulated by GPL at all. GPL is a > > license, the _owner_ of the rights (A) and the recipient of some rights > > (C, as an user) are the only subjects. D _owns_ no rights on the > > software, so can't grant any to C. There's no GPL between D and C. > > I think you are missing the point. D get's a licence from A, the GPL, and this > licence includes a licence, not on use, but on redistribution, and the act of > D distributing the copy to C is covered by it. In a sense A allows D to > distribute the software under the GPL to C. Now, D is only allowed to do this > distribution if he also distribute the source code of it, which he can't do > for the firmware. I think only a lawyer can answer here. What I'm saying is that the license always comes from the copyright owner, that is A. Sublicensing is not covered by GPL. Distribution is not sublicensing. Quoting GPL itself: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. ... The wording is clear, the license is between A and C. There's no license between D and C. There's no way C can enforce anything on D (well, not on GPL basis). > Notice also the fact that there are so many contributors to the linux kernel > in effect means that there is nobody with the full rights as A, but only a > multitude of people in the D case. In this case, A is clearly the author (onwer of rights) of the firmware. D is fine on respect of the other A's, since their source is actually (and clearly) there. It's the missing source case we're considering and the number of A's is quite small, the copyright owners of firmware images. Those A's are easily identified, and perfectly able to act. > > So, even if C comes to think D is breaking GPL, all C can do is notify > > A. The GPL D is supposedly breaking is an agreement between A and D > > only. On which basis may C sue D? For breaking what agreement? It's up > > to A to sue D for breaking GPL. > > This is indeed an interpretation. I am not sure myself if a user receiving > GPLed software in binary only fashion as is the case here can sue either D or > A to get access to that source code. The point is, if A states (even implicitly) D is distributing the right source, there's nothing C can do to D. D is not breaking GPL, as long A says so and it's A granting D the right to distribute. There's no way C can prevent D from distributing A's software, if A is fine with it. It's up to A to decide if GPL conditions are met by D. Maybe mine it's only one interpretation. But I can't see any other. > Now you could argue that any number of authors of GPLed bits of the linux > kernel could sue D for distributing their software as a derived work of the > binary-only bit, and the fact that D doesn't distribute the source code to the > binary bit voids any other right allowed him by the GPL, and thus he has no > right to do the distribution at all. The GPL is very clear on this topic. We're not talking of that case. D _is_ actually distributing the right source, according to A. It's C that is unsatisfied with it. > > What is the risk for D, if D is distributing the source of the software > > _exactly_ in the form A publicly provides it? It's not up to D to > > produce the source, all D has to do is to provide verbatim copies of > > it to anyone D distributes the software to, on request. > > Imagine one of those companies got bought up by some predatory company who > wishes us (linux, debian, redhat/suse, whoever) harm. They would then be able > to sue for damage or prejudice or whatever. And given what i have heard about > the uncertainities of the Alteon ownership, this seems indeed like a plausible > scenario, which could result in a SCO bis case. I'm not following. Are you saying what if A is bought? That is different. Well GPL is quite clear: 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, ... If D is distributing the source as received from A, D is in full compliance. How could A sue D? If A distributed incomplete source in the first place, it's not D's fault for sure. Do you really think the following scenario is likely: A to D: you must distribute the complete source, or the license will be terminated! D to A: gimme the complete source, and I'll distribute it. A to D: no, I'm not willing
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote: > AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of > bytes. An MP3 file isn't "software". Although it surely isn't hardware > either. This point is a controversial point. Different people make different claims. For example, http://www.answers.com/software -- the Computer Desktop Encyclopedia asserts that you are correct, while Wikipedia asserts that you are incorrect. The American Heritage Dictionary implies you are correct, and WordNet implies that you're incorrect. Usage is still evolving, so who knows where this issue will stand in five years. In the context of the linux kernel (which I presume you're talking about, given the message headers), I don't think it's plausible to suggest that the occasional use of the term "software" in the license means that the stuff under Documentation/ isn't covered by the license. -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:31:53PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > Perhaps you could cite the law that restricts to the copyright > holder the right to restrict the distribution of derivative works. I can > cite the laws that restrict all those other things and clearly *don't* > mention distribution of derivative works. 17 USC 103 17 USC 106 -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you > could it do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there > is no right to control the distribution of derivative works for you > to withhold from me. While you are may be reporting your thoughts accurately, this problem doesn't seem to be a legal issue. The GPL explicitly discusses this issue (section 5), and a number of people have already posted with similar commentary. Anyways, one thing to keep in mind here is that if copyright law doesn't allow the GPL's grant of permission to be conditional then copyright law would not allow other copyright grants to be conditional. Another way of looking at this is that the GPL is a copyright license -- it represents the terms and conditions under which copyrights are granted, and it also represents those permissions. -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
David Schwartz writes: >>Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of >>derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common, >>for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work >>that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not >>distribute) the derivative work. > > This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the > license > to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create the derivative > work under first sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the > contract would not apply to you. This would, of course, only make sense if fair use or first sale rights *allow* the creation of derivative works. I have seen nothing in this thread or in the statutes to suggest that they do. Do not forget that your copyright interest in a derivative work is limited to the creative elements which you contributed. Simply having a license (or right) to create a derivative work does not permit you to infringe the original work's copyright, which still subsists in the derivative work insofar as the derivative work contains copyrightable elements from the original work. Even if some court agrees with your hypothesis that the compiled program is a derivative work of the source (which I doubt would happen), and you find some permission outside of the GPL to prepare that derivative work, you still need permission to copy it further. Michael Poole - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> > You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you could > > it do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there is > > no right to control the distribution of derivative works for you to > > withhold from me. > Wrong, sorry. Copyright is a *monopoly* on some activities (copy, > distribution of copies, making *and* distribution of derivative works). Perhaps you could cite the law that restricts to the copyright holder the right to restrict the distribution of derivative works. I can cite the laws that restrict all those other things and clearly *don't* mention distribution of derivative works. [from another post] >Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of >derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common, >for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work >that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not >distribute) the derivative work. This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the contract would not apply to you. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 06:12:22PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: > [I'm not subscribed, so this in not a real reply - sorry if it breaks > threading somehow.] > > Sven Luther wrote: > > The ftp-master are the ones reviewing the licencing problems, and they > are the > > ones handling the infrastructure, and putting their responsability on the > > stake. If they feel that some piece of software has dubious legal issues > > which > > come at a risk of having them personally come on the receiving end of a > > legal > > case, then they will say, no, we don't distribute this software, and that is > > the end of it. > > I've been following the whole discussion (including later messages), > but I'm still missing one point. You seem to have investigated a lot > on the subject, so I'll ask you. I don't get what real legal issues > distributors may have. > > Let me explain with an example. Lets say: > > A - is the Author (or rights owner) of the software (GPL'ed); > B - is an user, who got the a copy of the software from A; > C - is another user, who got a copy indirectly, that is from a > distributor; > D - is the distributor C got the copy from. > > Now, IANAL at all. But it seems to me that B has the right to _use_ the > software by means of GPL. As long as A thinks B doesn't break GPL, B is > fine. All B needs to do is to fulfill GPL conditions (as a user, there's > little to do). > > C also has the right to use the software, in a very similar way. As long > as A thinks C doesn't break GPL, C is fine. > > D has the right to distribute the software, under GPL terms. As long as > A thinks D doesn't break GPL, D is fine. > > Now. It seems to me that the relationship between D (distributor) and C > (target of the distribution) is _not_ regulated by GPL at all. GPL is a > license, the _owner_ of the rights (A) and the recipient of some rights > (C, as an user) are the only subjects. D _owns_ no rights on the > software, so can't grant any to C. There's no GPL between D and C. I think you are missing the point. D get's a licence from A, the GPL, and this licence includes a licence, not on use, but on redistribution, and the act of D distributing the copy to C is covered by it. In a sense A allows D to distribute the software under the GPL to C. Now, D is only allowed to do this distribution if he also distribute the source code of it, which he can't do for the firmware. Notice also the fact that there are so many contributors to the linux kernel in effect means that there is nobody with the full rights as A, but only a multitude of people in the D case. > So, even if C comes to think D is breaking GPL, all C can do is notify > A. The GPL D is supposedly breaking is an agreement between A and D > only. On which basis may C sue D? For breaking what agreement? It's up > to A to sue D for breaking GPL. This is indeed an interpretation. I am not sure myself if a user receiving GPLed software in binary only fashion as is the case here can sue either D or A to get access to that source code. Now you could argue that any number of authors of GPLed bits of the linux kernel could sue D for distributing their software as a derived work of the binary-only bit, and the fact that D doesn't distribute the source code to the binary bit voids any other right allowed him by the GPL, and thus he has no right to do the distribution at all. The GPL is very clear on this topic. > What is the risk for D, if D is distributing the source of the software > _exactly_ in the form A publicly provides it? It's not up to D to > produce the source, all D has to do is to provide verbatim copies of > it to anyone D distributes the software to, on request. Imagine one of those companies got bought up by some predatory company who wishes us (linux, debian, redhat/suse, whoever) harm. They would then be able to sue for damage or prejudice or whatever. And given what i have heard about the uncertainities of the Alteon ownership, this seems indeed like a plausible scenario, which could result in a SCO bis case. This is the scenario i want to avoid by explicitly stating the relationships of all copyright issues of those firmware blobs. > Does is really matter if C thinks the source being incomplete, > or missing? C can take the issue up with A (by means of the GPL that > exists between A and C), but not with D, since there's no GPL between > D and C. C is in the same position of B. If the source is incomplete, > they may ask A to comply to the GPL, but not D. D made no promises to > them. /me wonders if C then holds an illegal copy of the software, and can then be prosecuted for piracy :) Friendly, Sven Luther - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
[I'm not subscribed, so this in not a real reply - sorry if it breaks threading somehow.] Sven Luther wrote: > The ftp-master are the ones reviewing the licencing problems, and they are the > ones handling the infrastructure, and putting their responsability on the > stake. If they feel that some piece of software has dubious legal issues which > come at a risk of having them personally come on the receiving end of a legal > case, then they will say, no, we don't distribute this software, and that is > the end of it. I've been following the whole discussion (including later messages), but I'm still missing one point. You seem to have investigated a lot on the subject, so I'll ask you. I don't get what real legal issues distributors may have. Let me explain with an example. Lets say: A - is the Author (or rights owner) of the software (GPL'ed); B - is an user, who got the a copy of the software from A; C - is another user, who got a copy indirectly, that is from a distributor; D - is the distributor C got the copy from. Now, IANAL at all. But it seems to me that B has the right to _use_ the software by means of GPL. As long as A thinks B doesn't break GPL, B is fine. All B needs to do is to fulfill GPL conditions (as a user, there's little to do). C also has the right to use the software, in a very similar way. As long as A thinks C doesn't break GPL, C is fine. D has the right to distribute the software, under GPL terms. As long as A thinks D doesn't break GPL, D is fine. Now. It seems to me that the relationship between D (distributor) and C (target of the distribution) is _not_ regulated by GPL at all. GPL is a license, the _owner_ of the rights (A) and the recipient of some rights (C, as an user) are the only subjects. D _owns_ no rights on the software, so can't grant any to C. There's no GPL between D and C. So, even if C comes to think D is breaking GPL, all C can do is notify A. The GPL D is supposedly breaking is an agreement between A and D only. On which basis may C sue D? For breaking what agreement? It's up to A to sue D for breaking GPL. What is the risk for D, if D is distributing the source of the software _exactly_ in the form A publicly provides it? It's not up to D to produce the source, all D has to do is to provide verbatim copies of it to anyone D distributes the software to, on request. Does is really matter if C thinks the source being incomplete, or missing? C can take the issue up with A (by means of the GPL that exists between A and C), but not with D, since there's no GPL between D and C. C is in the same position of B. If the source is incomplete, they may ask A to comply to the GPL, but not D. D made no promises to them. So, as long as they don't modify the source, distributors are safe. No one can ask them to provide the "right" source, but A. And "right" means "right for A", of course, when it's A asking, by definition. What am I missing? TIA, .TM. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Michael Poole wrote: Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common, for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not distribute) the derivative work. Michael Poole Conceded. Altough .br's "computer programs" law explicitly says that you can reserve, in a license to create derivative works, all the rights over the derivative works. Massa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Humberto Massa writes: > David Schwartz wrote: > >> > On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: >> >> >> >> The way you stop someone from distributing part of your work is >> >> by arguing that the work they are distributing is a derivative >> >> work of your work and they had no right to *make* it in the first >> >> place. See, for example, Mulcahy v. Cheetah Learning. >> >> >> > Er, that's one way, but not *the* way. I could grant you >> > permission to create derivatives of my work, but not to >> > redistribute them. To stop you from distributing them, I'd argue >> > that you had no right to distribute them--you *did* have the right >> > to make it in the first place. >> >> >> You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you could >> it do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there is >> no right to control the distribution of derivative works for you to >> withhold from me. > Wrong, sorry. Copyright is a *monopoly* on some activities (copy, > distribution of copies, making *and* distribution of derivative works). Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common, for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not distribute) the derivative work. Michael Poole - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
David Schwartz wrote: > On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: >> The way you stop someone from distributing part of your work is >> by arguing that the work they are distributing is a derivative >> work of your work and they had no right to *make* it in the first >> place. See, for example, Mulcahy v. Cheetah Learning. > Er, that's one way, but not *the* way. I could grant you > permission to create derivatives of my work, but not to > redistribute them. To stop you from distributing them, I'd argue > that you had no right to distribute them--you *did* have the right > to make it in the first place. You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you could it do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there is no right to control the distribution of derivative works for you to withhold from me. Wrong, sorry. Copyright is a *monopoly* on some activities (copy, distribution of copies, making *and* distribution of derivative works). HTH, Massa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Giuseppe Bilotta wrote: On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:42:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Every book in my book shelf is software? If you digitalize it, yes. AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of bytes. An MP3 file isn't "software". Although it surely isn't hardware either. AFAIK "software" is just the complementary concept of "hardware". Hardware is hard, ie, the parts of anything you can touch. Software is the *information* part of anything. In the case of a table, hardware are the wood, nails, nuts and bolts that make the table and software is the design of the table, the recipy of the resin used to coat it, etc. In the case of a computer, hardware is the boards, case, monitor and software is all the information used to make the thing work, including all programs and all data contained in it. [] Massa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Adrian Bunk wrote: Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support. Actually, they did it to spite the patent holders. []s Massa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Glenn Maynard wrote: I've heard the claim, several times, that that creating a derivative work requires creative input, that linking stuff together with "ld" is completely uncreative, therefore no derivative work is created. (I'm not sure if you're making (here or elsewhere) that claim, but it seems like it.) What's the basis for this claim? (If you're not making it, anybody that does believe this is free to respond.) It's based on Title 17 USC, Sec. 101, where "derivative work" is defined: A âderivative workâ is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an ORIGINAL WORK OF AUTHORSHIP, is a âderivative workâ. (emphasis added) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Glenn Maynard wrote: I've heard the claim, several times, that that creating a derivative work requires creative input, that linking stuff together with ld is completely uncreative, therefore no derivative work is created. (I'm not sure if you're making (here or elsewhere) that claim, but it seems like it.) What's the basis for this claim? (If you're not making it, anybody that does believe this is free to respond.) It's based on Title 17 USC, Sec. 101, where derivative work is defined: A derivative work is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an ORIGINAL WORK OF AUTHORSHIP, is a derivative work. (emphasis added) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
David Schwartz wrote: On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: The way you stop someone from distributing part of your work is by arguing that the work they are distributing is a derivative work of your work and they had no right to *make* it in the first place. See, for example, Mulcahy v. Cheetah Learning. Er, that's one way, but not *the* way. I could grant you permission to create derivatives of my work, but not to redistribute them. To stop you from distributing them, I'd argue that you had no right to distribute them--you *did* have the right to make it in the first place. You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you could it do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there is no right to control the distribution of derivative works for you to withhold from me. Wrong, sorry. Copyright is a *monopoly* on some activities (copy, distribution of copies, making *and* distribution of derivative works). HTH, Massa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Adrian Bunk wrote: Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support. Actually, they did it to spite the patent holders. []s Massa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Giuseppe Bilotta wrote: On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:42:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Every book in my book shelf is software? If you digitalize it, yes. AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of bytes. An MP3 file isn't software. Although it surely isn't hardware either. AFAIK software is just the complementary concept of hardware. Hardware is hard, ie, the parts of anything you can touch. Software is the *information* part of anything. In the case of a table, hardware are the wood, nails, nuts and bolts that make the table and software is the design of the table, the recipy of the resin used to coat it, etc. In the case of a computer, hardware is the boards, case, monitor and software is all the information used to make the thing work, including all programs and all data contained in it. [] Massa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Humberto Massa writes: David Schwartz wrote: On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: The way you stop someone from distributing part of your work is by arguing that the work they are distributing is a derivative work of your work and they had no right to *make* it in the first place. See, for example, Mulcahy v. Cheetah Learning. Er, that's one way, but not *the* way. I could grant you permission to create derivatives of my work, but not to redistribute them. To stop you from distributing them, I'd argue that you had no right to distribute them--you *did* have the right to make it in the first place. You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you could it do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there is no right to control the distribution of derivative works for you to withhold from me. Wrong, sorry. Copyright is a *monopoly* on some activities (copy, distribution of copies, making *and* distribution of derivative works). Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common, for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not distribute) the derivative work. Michael Poole - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Michael Poole wrote: Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common, for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not distribute) the derivative work. Michael Poole Conceded. Altough .br's computer programs law explicitly says that you can reserve, in a license to create derivative works, all the rights over the derivative works. Massa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
[I'm not subscribed, so this in not a real reply - sorry if it breaks threading somehow.] Sven Luther wrote: The ftp-master are the ones reviewing the licencing problems, and they are the ones handling the infrastructure, and putting their responsability on the stake. If they feel that some piece of software has dubious legal issues which come at a risk of having them personally come on the receiving end of a legal case, then they will say, no, we don't distribute this software, and that is the end of it. I've been following the whole discussion (including later messages), but I'm still missing one point. You seem to have investigated a lot on the subject, so I'll ask you. I don't get what real legal issues distributors may have. Let me explain with an example. Lets say: A - is the Author (or rights owner) of the software (GPL'ed); B - is an user, who got the a copy of the software from A; C - is another user, who got a copy indirectly, that is from a distributor; D - is the distributor C got the copy from. Now, IANAL at all. But it seems to me that B has the right to _use_ the software by means of GPL. As long as A thinks B doesn't break GPL, B is fine. All B needs to do is to fulfill GPL conditions (as a user, there's little to do). C also has the right to use the software, in a very similar way. As long as A thinks C doesn't break GPL, C is fine. D has the right to distribute the software, under GPL terms. As long as A thinks D doesn't break GPL, D is fine. Now. It seems to me that the relationship between D (distributor) and C (target of the distribution) is _not_ regulated by GPL at all. GPL is a license, the _owner_ of the rights (A) and the recipient of some rights (C, as an user) are the only subjects. D _owns_ no rights on the software, so can't grant any to C. There's no GPL between D and C. So, even if C comes to think D is breaking GPL, all C can do is notify A. The GPL D is supposedly breaking is an agreement between A and D only. On which basis may C sue D? For breaking what agreement? It's up to A to sue D for breaking GPL. What is the risk for D, if D is distributing the source of the software _exactly_ in the form A publicly provides it? It's not up to D to produce the source, all D has to do is to provide verbatim copies of it to anyone D distributes the software to, on request. Does is really matter if C thinks the source being incomplete, or missing? C can take the issue up with A (by means of the GPL that exists between A and C), but not with D, since there's no GPL between D and C. C is in the same position of B. If the source is incomplete, they may ask A to comply to the GPL, but not D. D made no promises to them. So, as long as they don't modify the source, distributors are safe. No one can ask them to provide the right source, but A. And right means right for A, of course, when it's A asking, by definition. What am I missing? TIA, .TM. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 06:12:22PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: [I'm not subscribed, so this in not a real reply - sorry if it breaks threading somehow.] Sven Luther wrote: The ftp-master are the ones reviewing the licencing problems, and they are the ones handling the infrastructure, and putting their responsability on the stake. If they feel that some piece of software has dubious legal issues which come at a risk of having them personally come on the receiving end of a legal case, then they will say, no, we don't distribute this software, and that is the end of it. I've been following the whole discussion (including later messages), but I'm still missing one point. You seem to have investigated a lot on the subject, so I'll ask you. I don't get what real legal issues distributors may have. Let me explain with an example. Lets say: A - is the Author (or rights owner) of the software (GPL'ed); B - is an user, who got the a copy of the software from A; C - is another user, who got a copy indirectly, that is from a distributor; D - is the distributor C got the copy from. Now, IANAL at all. But it seems to me that B has the right to _use_ the software by means of GPL. As long as A thinks B doesn't break GPL, B is fine. All B needs to do is to fulfill GPL conditions (as a user, there's little to do). C also has the right to use the software, in a very similar way. As long as A thinks C doesn't break GPL, C is fine. D has the right to distribute the software, under GPL terms. As long as A thinks D doesn't break GPL, D is fine. Now. It seems to me that the relationship between D (distributor) and C (target of the distribution) is _not_ regulated by GPL at all. GPL is a license, the _owner_ of the rights (A) and the recipient of some rights (C, as an user) are the only subjects. D _owns_ no rights on the software, so can't grant any to C. There's no GPL between D and C. I think you are missing the point. D get's a licence from A, the GPL, and this licence includes a licence, not on use, but on redistribution, and the act of D distributing the copy to C is covered by it. In a sense A allows D to distribute the software under the GPL to C. Now, D is only allowed to do this distribution if he also distribute the source code of it, which he can't do for the firmware. Notice also the fact that there are so many contributors to the linux kernel in effect means that there is nobody with the full rights as A, but only a multitude of people in the D case. So, even if C comes to think D is breaking GPL, all C can do is notify A. The GPL D is supposedly breaking is an agreement between A and D only. On which basis may C sue D? For breaking what agreement? It's up to A to sue D for breaking GPL. This is indeed an interpretation. I am not sure myself if a user receiving GPLed software in binary only fashion as is the case here can sue either D or A to get access to that source code. Now you could argue that any number of authors of GPLed bits of the linux kernel could sue D for distributing their software as a derived work of the binary-only bit, and the fact that D doesn't distribute the source code to the binary bit voids any other right allowed him by the GPL, and thus he has no right to do the distribution at all. The GPL is very clear on this topic. What is the risk for D, if D is distributing the source of the software _exactly_ in the form A publicly provides it? It's not up to D to produce the source, all D has to do is to provide verbatim copies of it to anyone D distributes the software to, on request. Imagine one of those companies got bought up by some predatory company who wishes us (linux, debian, redhat/suse, whoever) harm. They would then be able to sue for damage or prejudice or whatever. And given what i have heard about the uncertainities of the Alteon ownership, this seems indeed like a plausible scenario, which could result in a SCO bis case. This is the scenario i want to avoid by explicitly stating the relationships of all copyright issues of those firmware blobs. Does is really matter if C thinks the source being incomplete, or missing? C can take the issue up with A (by means of the GPL that exists between A and C), but not with D, since there's no GPL between D and C. C is in the same position of B. If the source is incomplete, they may ask A to comply to the GPL, but not D. D made no promises to them. /me wonders if C then holds an illegal copy of the software, and can then be prosecuted for piracy :) Friendly, Sven Luther - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you could it do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there is no right to control the distribution of derivative works for you to withhold from me. Wrong, sorry. Copyright is a *monopoly* on some activities (copy, distribution of copies, making *and* distribution of derivative works). Perhaps you could cite the law that restricts to the copyright holder the right to restrict the distribution of derivative works. I can cite the laws that restrict all those other things and clearly *don't* mention distribution of derivative works. [from another post] Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common, for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not distribute) the derivative work. This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the contract would not apply to you. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
David Schwartz writes: Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common, for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not distribute) the derivative work. This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the contract would not apply to you. This would, of course, only make sense if fair use or first sale rights *allow* the creation of derivative works. I have seen nothing in this thread or in the statutes to suggest that they do. Do not forget that your copyright interest in a derivative work is limited to the creative elements which you contributed. Simply having a license (or right) to create a derivative work does not permit you to infringe the original work's copyright, which still subsists in the derivative work insofar as the derivative work contains copyrightable elements from the original work. Even if some court agrees with your hypothesis that the compiled program is a derivative work of the source (which I doubt would happen), and you find some permission outside of the GPL to prepare that derivative work, you still need permission to copy it further. Michael Poole - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you could it do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there is no right to control the distribution of derivative works for you to withhold from me. While you are may be reporting your thoughts accurately, this problem doesn't seem to be a legal issue. The GPL explicitly discusses this issue (section 5), and a number of people have already posted with similar commentary. Anyways, one thing to keep in mind here is that if copyright law doesn't allow the GPL's grant of permission to be conditional then copyright law would not allow other copyright grants to be conditional. Another way of looking at this is that the GPL is a copyright license -- it represents the terms and conditions under which copyrights are granted, and it also represents those permissions. -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:31:53PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: Perhaps you could cite the law that restricts to the copyright holder the right to restrict the distribution of derivative works. I can cite the laws that restrict all those other things and clearly *don't* mention distribution of derivative works. 17 USC 103 17 USC 106 -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 18:25 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 06:12:22PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: [...] A - is the Author (or rights owner) of the software (GPL'ed); B - is an user, who got the a copy of the software from A; C - is another user, who got a copy indirectly, that is from a distributor; D - is the distributor C got the copy from. [...] Now. It seems to me that the relationship between D (distributor) and C (target of the distribution) is _not_ regulated by GPL at all. GPL is a license, the _owner_ of the rights (A) and the recipient of some rights (C, as an user) are the only subjects. D _owns_ no rights on the software, so can't grant any to C. There's no GPL between D and C. I think you are missing the point. D get's a licence from A, the GPL, and this licence includes a licence, not on use, but on redistribution, and the act of D distributing the copy to C is covered by it. In a sense A allows D to distribute the software under the GPL to C. Now, D is only allowed to do this distribution if he also distribute the source code of it, which he can't do for the firmware. I think only a lawyer can answer here. What I'm saying is that the license always comes from the copyright owner, that is A. Sublicensing is not covered by GPL. Distribution is not sublicensing. Quoting GPL itself: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. ... The wording is clear, the license is between A and C. There's no license between D and C. There's no way C can enforce anything on D (well, not on GPL basis). Notice also the fact that there are so many contributors to the linux kernel in effect means that there is nobody with the full rights as A, but only a multitude of people in the D case. In this case, A is clearly the author (onwer of rights) of the firmware. D is fine on respect of the other A's, since their source is actually (and clearly) there. It's the missing source case we're considering and the number of A's is quite small, the copyright owners of firmware images. Those A's are easily identified, and perfectly able to act. So, even if C comes to think D is breaking GPL, all C can do is notify A. The GPL D is supposedly breaking is an agreement between A and D only. On which basis may C sue D? For breaking what agreement? It's up to A to sue D for breaking GPL. This is indeed an interpretation. I am not sure myself if a user receiving GPLed software in binary only fashion as is the case here can sue either D or A to get access to that source code. The point is, if A states (even implicitly) D is distributing the right source, there's nothing C can do to D. D is not breaking GPL, as long A says so and it's A granting D the right to distribute. There's no way C can prevent D from distributing A's software, if A is fine with it. It's up to A to decide if GPL conditions are met by D. Maybe mine it's only one interpretation. But I can't see any other. Now you could argue that any number of authors of GPLed bits of the linux kernel could sue D for distributing their software as a derived work of the binary-only bit, and the fact that D doesn't distribute the source code to the binary bit voids any other right allowed him by the GPL, and thus he has no right to do the distribution at all. The GPL is very clear on this topic. We're not talking of that case. D _is_ actually distributing the right source, according to A. It's C that is unsatisfied with it. What is the risk for D, if D is distributing the source of the software _exactly_ in the form A publicly provides it? It's not up to D to produce the source, all D has to do is to provide verbatim copies of it to anyone D distributes the software to, on request. Imagine one of those companies got bought up by some predatory company who wishes us (linux, debian, redhat/suse, whoever) harm. They would then be able to sue for damage or prejudice or whatever. And given what i have heard about the uncertainities of the Alteon ownership, this seems indeed like a plausible scenario, which could result in a SCO bis case. I'm not following. Are you saying what if A is bought? That is different. Well GPL is quite clear: 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, ... If D is distributing the source as received from A, D is in full compliance. How could A sue D? If A distributed incomplete source in the first place, it's not D's fault for sure. Do you really think the following scenario is likely: A to D: you must distribute the complete source, or the license will be terminated! D to A: gimme the complete source, and I'll distribute it. A to D: no, I'm not willing to give you the full source of my firmware, but you
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:54:50PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: In this case, A is clearly the author (onwer of rights) of the firmware. D is fine on respect of the other A's, since their source is actually (and clearly) there. It's the missing source case we're considering and the number of A's is quite small, the copyright owners of firmware images. Those A's are easily identified, and perfectly able to act. Well, i am not sure with your interpretation, but even if you where right, we have no guarantee that A will continue being lenient, and no guarantee that A will not start suing D or whoever for illegally distributing his stuff without sources. So, even if C comes to think D is breaking GPL, all C can do is notify A. The GPL D is supposedly breaking is an agreement between A and D only. On which basis may C sue D? For breaking what agreement? It's up to A to sue D for breaking GPL. This is indeed an interpretation. I am not sure myself if a user receiving GPLed software in binary only fashion as is the case here can sue either D or A to get access to that source code. The point is, if A states (even implicitly) D is distributing the right source, there's nothing C can do to D. D is not breaking GPL, as long A So, i get some random bit of GPLed software, i add a module or some code to it, i distribute that code in binary format only, and claim that i have used an hex editor to write it, or simply that it is the 'right' source. I have some serious doubts that i will not get sued by all the authors of the original GPLed work if i were to do that, and rightly so. says so and it's A granting D the right to distribute. There's no way C can prevent D from distributing A's software, if A is fine with it. It's up to A to decide if GPL conditions are met by D. Even in that case, you still need explicit permission of A, and all the other copyright holders of the rest of the GPLed work, to give you an explicit exception to link with this non-free bit of code. Maybe mine it's only one interpretation. But I can't see any other. Now you could argue that any number of authors of GPLed bits of the linux kernel could sue D for distributing their software as a derived work of the binary-only bit, and the fact that D doesn't distribute the source code to the binary bit voids any other right allowed him by the GPL, and thus he has no right to do the distribution at all. The GPL is very clear on this topic. We're not talking of that case. D _is_ actually distributing the right source, according to A. It's C that is unsatisfied with it. No. The source code is clearly the prefered form of modification, not some random intermediate state A may be claiming is source. What is the risk for D, if D is distributing the source of the software _exactly_ in the form A publicly provides it? It's not up to D to produce the source, all D has to do is to provide verbatim copies of it to anyone D distributes the software to, on request. Imagine one of those companies got bought up by some predatory company who wishes us (linux, debian, redhat/suse, whoever) harm. They would then be able to sue for damage or prejudice or whatever. And given what i have heard about the uncertainities of the Alteon ownership, this seems indeed like a plausible scenario, which could result in a SCO bis case. I'm not following. Are you saying what if A is bought? That is different. Well GPL is quite clear: 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, ... If D is distributing the source as received from A, D is in full compliance. How could A sue D? If A distributed incomplete source in the first place, it's not D's fault for sure. Do you really think the following scenario is likely: A to D: you must distribute the complete source, or the license will be terminated! D to A: gimme the complete source, and I'll distribute it. A to D: no, I'm not willing to give you the full source of my firmware, but you must distribute it anyway! The result is that the code in question has to be stopped from being distributed by D. But the case here is different, since A is not the sole copyright owner, so he doesn't get to set random interpretations of what is source code. That, in court? Is this really what you're afraid of? The outcome is, very likely A will be forced to release the full source. (and D forced to distribute it, but all D's we're talking of here are very happy with the full disclosure scenario, aren't they?) Imagine A refusing to give away the source code, and D is ordered to remove the incriminated code it is illegally distributing from all its servers, and recall all those thousands of CD and DVD isos containing the code it distributed, and being fined for each day it doesn't do so ? This is the scenario i want to avoid by explicitly stating the relationships
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote: AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of bytes. An MP3 file isn't software. Although it surely isn't hardware either. This point is a controversial point. Different people make different claims. For example, http://www.answers.com/software -- the Computer Desktop Encyclopedia asserts that you are correct, while Wikipedia asserts that you are incorrect. The American Heritage Dictionary implies you are correct, and WordNet implies that you're incorrect. Usage is still evolving, so who knows where this issue will stand in five years. In the context of the linux kernel (which I presume you're talking about, given the message headers), I don't think it's plausible to suggest that the occasional use of the term software in the license means that the stuff under Documentation/ isn't covered by the license. -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:54:50PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote: In this case, A is clearly the author (onwer of rights) of the firmware. D is fine on respect of the other A's, since their source is actually (and clearly) there. It's the missing source case we're considering and the number of A's is quite small, the copyright owners of firmware images. Those A's are easily identified, and perfectly able to act. Well, i am not sure with your interpretation, but even if you where right, we have no guarantee that A will continue being lenient, and no guarantee that A will not start suing D or whoever for illegally distributing his stuff without sources. Let's keep things separated. I'm saying that the only one that may sue D is A, not C. If we agree on this, we may abandon the case of a third party sueing D. As for threats coming from A, IMHO D is safe as long as he distributes what A claims the source is, even if it's a hex string. In no world A can publicly state this is the source and then sue D because no, that's not the source (assuming D is copying it verbatim). So, even if C comes to think D is breaking GPL, all C can do is notify A. The GPL D is supposedly breaking is an agreement between A and D only. On which basis may C sue D? For breaking what agreement? It's up to A to sue D for breaking GPL. This is indeed an interpretation. I am not sure myself if a user receiving GPLed software in binary only fashion as is the case here can sue either D or A to get access to that source code. The point is, if A states (even implicitly) D is distributing the right source, there's nothing C can do to D. D is not breaking GPL, as long A So, i get some random bit of GPLed software, i add a module or some code to it, i distribute that code in binary format only, and claim that i have used an hex editor to write it, or simply that it is the 'right' source. I have some serious doubts that i will not get sued by all the authors of the original GPLed work if i were to do that, and rightly so. No. Please don't throw irrelevant matters in. D is not modifing the software at all. D is a mere distributor. We're not addressing issues related to modification, since no one is going to modify the firmware anyway. This is not a general discussion on GPL. Issues related to modification do not belong to this thread, which already very close to off topic on l-k. Which reminds me. The only reason why this thread belongs here, IMHO, it's because when it comes to GPL, it really doesn't matter what FSF's interpretation is, or anyone else's. The authors are choosing GPL as a license, so _thier_ interpretation is what really matters. says so and it's A granting D the right to distribute. There's no way C can prevent D from distributing A's software, if A is fine with it. It's up to A to decide if GPL conditions are met by D. Even in that case, you still need explicit permission of A, and all the other copyright holders of the rest of the GPLed work, to give you an explicit exception to link with this non-free bit of code. Yes, but it does not apply to our case here. There's no all other copyright holders. _You_ stated that the firmware is included by mere aggregation, so there's no other holders involved. We're talking about the firmware case. A is one or two well identified subjects. And A wrote it is GPL'ed. Whether you agree or not, that's the licence A chose. A placed the copyright notice. The licence is a matter between A and D. A may sue D and D may (less likely) sue A, if conditions are not met. I'm not sure at all GPL is enforceable by D upon A. Let's assume it is, for sake of discussion, anyway. Now you could argue that any number of authors of GPLed bits of the linux kernel could sue D for distributing their software as a derived work of the binary-only bit, and the fact that D doesn't distribute the source code to the binary bit voids any other right allowed him by the GPL, and thus he has no right to do the distribution at all. The GPL is very clear on this topic. We're not talking of that case. D _is_ actually distributing the right source, according to A. It's C that is unsatisfied with it. No. The source code is clearly the prefered form of modification, not some random intermediate state A may be claiming is source. In this context, it is. Only A may sue D for not distributing the source. Whatever D distributes, D has to make A happy. If A is happy with D distributing `dd if=/dev/random count=1` as source, no one can stop D from doing that. Keep in mind A is the copyright holder. He grants rights to third parties. No one but A can remove them. [...] I'm not following. Are you saying what if A is bought? That is different. Well GPL is quite clear: 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, ... If D is distributing the source as received from A, D is in full compliance. How could A sue D? If A distributed incomplete source in the
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > Well that's the problem. While copyright law does permit > > you to restrict > > the right to create derivative works, it doesn't permit you to > > restrict the > > distribution of lawfully created derivative works to licensees of the > > original work. As far as I know, no law has ever granted this right to > > copyright holders and no court has ever recognized this right. And I've > > looked. Courts have specifically recognized the absence of this right. > The GPL is very clear in its implementation: it grants wider permission > to create derivative works than to distribute them, implementing its > "virality" in terms of restrictions on distribution, not creation. It doesn't even need to do this. First sale grants the right to use a work one lawfully possesses. One cannot "use" the Linux kernel source without compiling it. So one doesn't need the GPL to create at least some derivative works. > So, > it seems that you're claiming that the GPL is broken or unenforcable in > some aspects. (If you're not, I'd like to know where I'm confused.) > If that's the case, it's a claim I'm not qualified to debate, but would > be interested in hearing the FSF's response. It has always been the FSF's position that you don't need to agree to the GPL to use the covered work. One cannot use the Linux kernel without compiling it and linking it. One cannot use a library without creating a work that uses the library, including the header files, and compiling/linking to form a result. So you can *create* a broad array of derivative works without invoking the GPL's restrictions (under first sale and how source code is ordinarily used). The argument that you cannot distribute a derived work unless the GPL says you can *because* you must have agreed to the GPL in order to lawfully create the derivative work is pure bunk. I don't know that the FSF relies upon the argument, however, it came up in this thread, which is why I refuted it (at least four times now). ;) DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> > The GPL applies to distributing a Linux binary I just made even > > though nobody ever chose to apply the GPL to the binary I just made > > only because the binary I just made is a derivative work of the > > Linux kernel, and the authors of that work chose to apply the GPL to > > it. > How can the binary be a derivative work when it does *not* contain > firmware, but suddenly cease to be a derivative work if one *does* > add firmware into it? Because, the argument would go, the binary with the firmware linked in is not a work, it is two works that are aggregated because there's a license boundary between them. The argument would be that the binary with the firmware is *a* *derivative* *work* of the Linux kernel source. The "a" is a critical part of the argument that cannot be omitted. Showing that the linked binary was two works would be sufficient to significantly weaken the argument that it can't be distributed. You can't argue that only the GPL gives you the right to distribute the result, regardless of what it is, because there are other sources of such rights. These include fair use, first sale, and the fact that the law does not create a special right to restrict the distribution of lawfully-created derivative works (to licensees of the original work). My point is not simply that the question of whether or not linking creates a single work that is a derivative work of all the things linked is important to the question of whether you can distribute GPL'd works linked with non-GPL'd works. And the standard is copyright law, not what the GPL says. (Though that's also important, because then you would have even more rights.) DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
