[linux-audio-dev] Request to audio related LiveCD packagers

[Jens M Andreasen]

Hi!

Am I the only one to believe that this firmware discussion is getting a
bit out of touch? I mean, the firmware is not running inside a gnu
system, right? It is running on an external device. 

I can't see how uploading binary firmware would be different from
relaying encrypted mail.

mvh // Jens M andreasen


On tor, 2004-04-29 at 20:00, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
> 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"