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

Takashi Iwai tiwai at suse.de
Mon May 3 13:08:22 UTC 2004


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
the firmware code.


--
Takashi Iwai <tiwai at suse.de>		ALSA Developer - www.alsa-project.org



More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list