linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-2008-discuss] RFC: Moving firmware blobs out of the kernel.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 7 Jun 2008 11:53:20 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com,
	ksummit-2008-discuss@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2008-discuss] RFC: Moving firmware blobs out of the kernel.

Hi!

> > > The firmware is an independent and separate work in itself. Section 2 of
> > > the GPL talks about such sections of the work, explicitly. The only way
> > > to excuse what we're doing at the moment is to call it 'mere
> > > aggregation' -- an exception which was intended to handle stuff like the
> > > 'freeware' CDs on the covers of magazines, distributing a bunch of
> > > unrelated software. Not a coherent work combining software from
> > > different sources into a single entity which works closely together as
> > > one, and where one part is useless without the other.
> > 
> > Wait a moment, haven't you just described linux distribution?
> > 
> > I mean, if aggregation clause does not work for firmware in kernel,
> > why would it work for packages in distro?
> >
> > (Actually, seeing some distro EULAs, I wished GPL infected whole
> > distro so that I'd not have to read the stupid EULA.)
> 
> That's an interesting question, which has concerned me in the past. 
> There are certainly those who would claim that the distribution _is_ a
> collective work, and not just 'mere aggregation on a volume of a storage
> or distribution medium'. Which poses interesting questions.
> 
> I think you might _just_ about get away with arguing to the contrary, as
> long as you never refer to the distribution as a collective work which
> is copyrightable in its own right, or try to put a EULA on it or
> anything like that. At least it's _slightly_ more excusable in that case
> than what we were talking about before.

Well, distos I seen, did try to claim whole distro is collective work,
and did have eula in the front :-(.

> > > There are people who own copyright on firmware who refuse to put it into
> > > the Linux source tree, because their lawyers don't believe the 'mere
> > > aggregation' line, and believe that including it in the kernel source in
> > > any form would require them to license it under the GPL.
> > 
> > They can release the firmware under BSD 3-clause, and we can include
> > it in kernel, then.... right? (Or into linux-firmware or into whatever
> > package that comes handy).
> 
> You may only include it in a GPL'd project if you can distribute the
> source code in the preferred form for editing -- unless you claim that

Oops, you are right; I overlooked that.

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/