-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:13:36AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: re, first thanks Thomas for noticing, and trying out dyne:bolic. in my experience debian geeks are quite pedantic in judging things non-free (see XFree and Lame etc.), to their exclusion of ALSA firmware doesn't really tells anything to me. i must admit i also didn't dedicated enough attention to the topic, which i'm willing to do now with your help. d:b is not based on any distribution, so i can just start including the firmware from now on. but i have ONE BIG QUESTION: is the ALSA firmware freely redistributable by third parties, like me? thanks! - -- jaromil, dyne.org rasta coder, http://rastasoft.org

[I'm putting the users@ and developers(a)lists.agnula.org on Cc: for informational purposes, and the team(a)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] 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(a)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"

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:

At Tue, 04 May 2004 11:03:10 +0200, Andrea Glorioso wrote: i might have minunderstood his arguments, but let me try to straighten the discussion. 1) the firmware loader itself is clean. the all source codes are provided under GPL. 2) the firmware data is, so far, provided also under GPL, too. (i.e. it is redistributable by any person.) and this looks like a problem. if the firmware data is regarded as a "program", the corresponding source codes must be provided. but if it's nothing but "data"? how can we prove for/against that? 4) because of the suspect of (2), AGNULA doesn't include alsa-firmware package in the live-cd. so, the discussion should have nothing to do with the fact "on which system the firmware is loaded". it's the question of distribution. it it's distributed under a wrong license, either change the license or provide what's needed additionally. ok, let's look at the case of encrypted mail as an example. basically, you can read your encrypted mail with a GPL mailer. but, if you distribute this encrypted mail under GPL, most likely you'll need to give the original mail as human readable, because there is a "source" mail. the exception would be the case if you wrote an encrypted mail as it is (yes, in former days, it was coded manually :) you don't have to provide the source, because it IS the source... in addition to the above, there is another thing to discuss -- whether such gray binary stuffs are included in AGNULA. AGNULA people must decide it, if the alsa-firmware data is released under a different license. this is my understanding. please correct me if it's wrong. Takashi

[ Re-putting the original Cc: list in, I think that it's a good idea to have all the above mentioned parties involved and I didn't read any explicit objection to it ] It would probably solve the original distributor's problem, but that wouldn't mean AGNULA could distribute it inside DeMuDi (not as long as we reach a consensus that either that firmware is not a program, or that it is a non-free program whose distribution is permitted on the Live CD because otherwise professional audio users will never use Free Software). bye, -- Andrea Glorioso andrea.glorioso(a)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"

On tis, 2004-05-04 at 11:03, Andrea Glorioso wrote: The gnu system runs from the kernel and upwards. The external devices are from the bios and downwards. The firmware could be soundfont data compressed by a propiatary algorithm thus "encrypted" Wether the decryption algorithm is binarily distributed along with the firmware or burned in an eprom or hardwired in silicone doesn't change anything. The algorithm is still as unreadable as an encrypted mail, and the firmware loader is just passing an encrypted message to the underworld beneith the bios. /jens

There is also point (4): should the AGNULA project distribute (via the AGNULA/DeMuDi distribution) binary firmware if we agree that (1) is true and (2) is false? I mean, how pragmatic should we become? And what's worse, the distinction between "program" and "data" can often become really blurry. And I might be wrong, but my guess is that if a piece of data is absolutely necessary for a GNU GPL program to work, then that data should be distributed together with the program at the same conditions of the GNU GPL (otherwise the GNU GPL itself could be very easily bypassed). The first step I would do is ask the companies that are distributing firmware under the GNU GPL is a written and signed statement that the binary code is actually their preferred form to modify the program, as as such the binary and the source really are the same thing. bye, -- Andrea Glorioso andrea.glorioso(a)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"

I tend to look at it (very conveniently, of course) as neither. I view it as part of the hardware device we're dealing with. Without it the device does not work. It is distributed as a separate file (inside the driver disk that actually comes with the device) because it is convenient for the manufacturer for updates, avoiding a flash rom in the device, and so on and so forth. Most probably very few people will agree with this viewpoint :-) -- Fernando

On Mon, 10 May 2004 06:44, Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote: Replying as an audiocard manufacturer (www.audioscience.com), this is exactly true for us. We have one external box (ASI2200) that can theoretically run standalone from internal flash, but for convenience of update, the firmware is downloaded by the driver every time. Firmware is supplied as a binary data file. As our linux driver is open source, the means of loading the data is there for all to see. All the code that runs on the host computer is open under either GPL or BSD style licence. But there is no way the company would release the source code for the firmware! (in fact we are contractually prevented from doing so in some cases). Obviously some do... - ELiot

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:13:36AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: If you're referring to the recent vote, the point was to make sure the debian system didn't *require* non-free software to function. They're still keeping 'non-free' and 'contib' around. They say that these two areas are 'no longer part of the distribution', but they'll still support them as part of the archive and via their bug-tracking system. So, in order to get the firmware, you'll probably just have to do something like 'apt-get install alsa-nonfree'. Cheers, - Mike

Hallo, Paul Davis hat gesagt: // Paul Davis wrote: Yes, but some of alsa-tools at least aren't "non-free" at all, like env24control. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__

At Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:37:29 +0200, Thomas Charbonnel wrote: no, it was written by Chris Rankin. i believe he wouldn't disagree to add a GPL note. -- Takashi Iwai <tiwai(a)suse.de> ALSA Developer - www.alsa-project.org

Wasn't the division between alsa-tools and alsa-firmware done explicitly to allow distribution of alsa-tools for distros which prefer not to distribute alsa-firmware? If A/DeMuDi doesn't have alsa-tools, that's a bug that should be corrected. I'm putting Free Ekanayaka, current A/DeMuDi core developer, on Cc: so that he takes note of the fact. I seem to remember I had already opened a bug for this, but I'm currently on a train (heading to Karlsruhe) and I can't check. bye, -- Andrea Glorioso andrea.glorioso(a)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"

My fault, then. That's what happens when you have to consider legal issues all day long - you start seeing licensing troubles everywhere. :) bye, -- Andrea Glorioso andrea.glorioso(a)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"