Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Request to audio related LiveCD packagers
From: Andrea Glorioso (andrea.glorioso_AT_agnula.org)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 21:00:10 EEST
Dear all,
Takashi from ALSA asked me to put him on Cc: in order to discuss the
whole issue in great depth - since he's overburden by e-mail (how I
can understand that!) he prefers to be able to follow the thing more
directly, hence the Cc:.
Let's keep discussing. My personal goal is to reach a wide consensus
amongst the community (counting the ALSA folks, the LAD people, and
possibly the FSFE - as well, of course, the AGNULA project people) on
this subject, and then decide for a route to follow.
What I don't want to do (and I can't do) is simply deciding by myself
to include possibly non-free software (if you consider firmware
software, which is another problem) inside AGNULA.
bye!
andrea
>>>>> "Andrea" == Andrea Glorioso <andrea.glorioso_AT_agnula.org> writes:
> [I'm putting the users@ and developers_AT_lists.agnula.org on Cc:
> for informational purposes, and the team_AT_fsfeurope.org to hear
> the opinion of the FSFE on the matter. If LADders prefer not to
> continue the discussion on linux-audio-dev, I'm sure nobody will
> object to removing the latter list from the Cc:s :) ]
> [For the list on Cc: we are talking about the redistributability
> and GNU GPL compliance of the alsa-firmware package, as well as
> of firmware in general, I'd say]
>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Charbonnel <thomas_AT_undata.org> writes:
>> First of all thanks for Dyne:bolic :) All README files from the
>> alsa-firmware package grant copyright to the respective
>> companies with the statement 'Redistributable under the GPL',
>> so I guess the answer is yes. As far as I'm concerned we
>> received several verbal and mail confirmations from RME that we
>> could redistribute the files, and Matthias Carstens (who I just
>> met last week) promised me an official written statement.
> I absolutely don't want to start a legal debate here, given that
> it would probably be off topic and the issue has already been
> (and is being) widely discussed on the debian-legal mailing
> list, but please notice that AFAICT distributing binaries under
> the GNU GPL license means that the distributor must
> (a) Accompany [the program] with the complete corresponding
> machine-readable source code [...]
> (b) Accompany [the program] with a written offer, valid for at
> least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more
> than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a
> complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code
> [...]
> (there is also option (c), see the GNU GPL v.2 for further
> details)
> The point here is understanding what the `source' of a piece of
> firmware is.
> The GNU GPL defines the `source' as the "the preferred form of
> the work for making modifications to it". Now the debate on
> debian-legal has been whether the hex-expressed firmware
> discovered in various kernel files was actually hand-modified by
> the "distributor" with a hex editor, or a higher-level language
> was used. If the latter is true, then the GNU GPL has been
> breached (because I've never seen the source code of the
> alsa-firmware package, please correct me if I'm wrong).
> So, saying that the firmware is "distributable under the GNU
> GPL" is not sufficient `per se' to prove that the firmware
> itself is Free Software.
> My personal position is one of being a bit more pragmatic. A
> large part of the hardware we use actually has firmware embedded
> into it, the only difference being that we don't see it and we
> don't need to upload it (for example, AFAICR the Pentium IV
> automatically translates standard Intel machine code into an
> internal, risc-like, set of instructions - nobody is asking
> Intel for the source code of *that* firmware).
> The issue is thorny and I agree that a Live CD without
> alsa-firmware is not particularly efficient. On the other hand,
> I do see legal (as well as ethical, if one wants to go down that
> route) problems in distributing non-free firmware. I'd like to
> understand the various options a bit more before launching
> ourselves into the "users-need-it-so-lets-package-it" frenzy
> (I'd rather tell users that they must bug the companies they buy
> hardware from to release the `source code' of the firmware
> needed to operate those cards under GNU/Linux, if we discover
> that the firmware is actually non-free).
> Usual caveats apply: IANAL, YMMV, etc, etc. If anybody has a
> deeper insight into the matter I'd love hearing it, since the
> problem has been a PITA for us for a long time (see the
> lists.agnula.org archives and devel.agnula.org `demudi'
> project's bug lists if you are interested).
> Bye,
> -- Andrea Glorioso andrea.glorioso_AT_agnula.org AGNULA Technical
> Manager http://www.agnula.org/ M: +39 333 820 5723 F: +39 (0)51
> 930 31 133 "Libre Audio, Libre Video, Libre Software: AGNULA"
--
Andrea Glorioso andrea.glorioso_AT_agnula.org
AGNULA Technical Manager http://www.agnula.org/
M: +39 333 820 5723 F: +39 (0)51 930 31 133
"Libre Audio, Libre Video, Libre Software: AGNULA"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 21:04:16 EEST