Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Request to audio related LiveCD packagers
From: Takashi Iwai (tiwai_AT_suse.de)
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 16:08:22 EEST
At Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:44:53 +0200,
Andrea Glorioso wrote:
>
> >>>>> "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).
i also don't know about this.
we got them from the hw vendors as they are.
> 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.
let me clarify the situation. there are a couple of different
questions regarding this:
1. is the firmware binary is a program or a data?
2. can we force the h/w vendor to show the source code under GPL (if
exists) in practice?
3. if not, shouldn't we change the license to the non-restrictive one?
which license would be feasible?
so far, alsa-firmware package is released from the understanding of 1
as "data". but if someone insists it as program, yes, it can be a
problem.
> 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).
sure, the correct distribution under GPL would be the best case,
i.e. including the source code of the orignal assembly codes (if
really exists).
basically, it is a decision of the h/w vendor who provides the DSP
binary, not by me. if the GPL is really unsuitable (and we can judge
the firmware as a program 100% absolutely :), we'll suggest them to
either show the source code or change the license ASAP.
but i don't expect GPL source codes as a realistic solution, although
i'll try it of course. remember that they are *really* delicate about