Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclearcopyright notice.

From: Marco Colombo
Date: Tue Apr 12 2005 - 11:25:04 EST

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote:

On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:40:48AM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
Which reminds me. The only reason why this thread belongs here, IMHO,
it's because when it comes to GPL, it really doesn't matter what
FSF's interpretation is, or anyone else's. The authors are choosing
GPL as a license, so _thier_ interpretation is what really matters.

The main problem is that i feel that those binary firmware copyright holders
may have put it under the GPL, but i doubt they realize that this means they
have to release the source code of said firmware blobs.

They released it not in object format, but in the C language. An
hexstring, agreed, but still C. The copyright holders can release
their work how they please. If you think GPL can place restrictions on
what they can do, please see below.

Also, i believe you are wrong in the above, the only interpretation that is
important is the one the judge will take in case someone goes to suing.

Agreed, let me rephrase then. The only interpretation that is important _to the judge_ is the one of the parties involved.
In any agreement, the parties express their will. Here, the holders
"wrote" the agreement alone, so _their_ interpretation counts.
That is, their interpretation as it was when they licenced the software.
Not as is it after later thinking (or acquisition by some bad guy).

And finally, if anyone could claim that a binary is the prefered form of
modification, which is most of the time obviously false, then the GPL would be
worthless. And anyway, the GPL states this (first paragraph after subclause c
in clause 3) :

I don't care about GPL being worthless. This is not the GPL advocacy
list. I'm just saying that if you distribute the source in the form
the author published it, you can't be sued by him for breaking GPL.
That's what any linux distro and its mirrors are doing.

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable.

So, this is not some interpretation of the GPL by the FSF, and since it is
written black on white in the actual GPL text, i don't think there is any
doubt what a judge will decice :

judge : so, to create this piece of work, what do you use to make
modifications ?
A (having sworn on the bible to say the truth and only the truth) : euh,
some C or asm code, and a compiler or assembler to compile it.
judge : and you did voluntarily place said code and distribute it under the
GPL ?
A : yes, it was going into the linux kernel, so ...
judge : so you should distribute the source code to your work also, and
distributing it under GPL is a breach of expectation from whoever you
distribute it to.

Or something such.

Again, I'm not following. The author release the source under GPL.
You can't release a binary under GPL, it makes no sense. So there's
no "so you should distribute the source code to your work _also_".
You released a software, it the form you claimed to be the source.
You like LISP, you release it in LISP. You like C, you release it
in C. You like hexcode, you release it in hexcode. No one can ask
you to change it.

You seems to keep forgetting what GPL is. It's a licence. The copyright holders grant some rights to third parties, _if_ they
comply to some conditions. Conditions are all placed on the third
parties, including the source disclosure one (source of _modifications_).
There is no condition the _holders_ have to meet. It'd be a nonsense.
The GPL says: "I grant you a right if you do this." and not:
"I grant you a right if _I_ do this.". GPL doesn't backfire.

Again, IANAL, but I see little room for "interpretation" here.

If A is going to say that he is the only author, and that he would never sue
because of this breach of the GPL, he could just as well have put it under a
different licence, or put a small disclaimer about it, since we cannot really
act as if we believed that A would never sue us, if he doesn't explicitly say
so.

No one will ever do that. If you are distributing the software I released
under GPL, be sure I _will_ sue you if you break the licence. What do you
want from me? A promise I won't sue you if you don't? That is implicit
in the existance of the licence.

Are you implying debian will stop distributing _any_ software unless
the all the copyright holders of GPL software "explicitly say" they
won't sue you?

As an example, i package the unicorn driver for the bewan soft-ADSL pci and
usb modems. These being soft-ADSL modems which use a non-free binary-only ADSL
emulating library, but are otherwise GPL, i discussed the matter with
upstream, and after council from debian-legal, and possibly the FSF people
themselves, we got to use this as GPL exception :

In addition, as a special exception, BeWAN systems gives permission
to link the code of this program with the modem SW library
(modem_ant_PCI.o, modem_ant_USB.o), and distribute linked combinations
including the two. You are also given permission to redistribute the
modem SW library (modem_ant_PCI.o, modem_ant_USB.o) with the rest of the
code.
You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of
the code used other than the modem SW library.

This is different. They are not giving the source at all. The licence
for those object files _has_ to be different. _They_ want it to be
different.

So, really, i doubt any manufacturer distributing non-free firmware would
really have trouble in adding to their licence something like this :

In addition, <manufacturer>, considers the firmware blob, identified as <...>, as
a non-derivative piece of work, and thus not covered by the GPL of the rest
of it. <manufacturer> gives permission to distribute said firmware blob as
part of the linux kernel module driver for their hardware. The actual syntax
of the inclusion of the code is still covered by the GPL, as is the rest of
the driver code.

This is fine with me. It is the existance of legal threats versus debian I don't agree upon.

If we where to get something as nicely pu as this, provide a patch, asking
the manufacturer to sign it of, then all issues would be void, i believe.

I think they are void even now.

[...]
Yes, but it does not apply to our case here. There's no "all other
copyright holders". _You_ stated that the firmware is included by mere
aggregation, so there's no other holders involved. We're talking
about the firmware case. A is one or two well identified subjects.
And A wrote it is GPL'ed. Whether you agree or not, that's the licence
A chose. A placed the copyright notice.

This is where i would need legal counsel, as to whether this means C or
someone else may stop you from distributing unless you provide the source. And
the real problem is that A didn't state anything, so we are only working on
the assumption that this may be the case, and A can change its mind later, and
the costs to defend ourselves in front of a judge, even if your
interpretations are right, are enough prohibitive for debian not to distribute
said files.

A did put a GPL notice on it. He can't change his mind later.

The licence is a matter between A and D. A may sue D and D may (less
likely) sue A, if conditions are not met. I'm not sure at all GPL
is enforceable by D upon A. Let's assume it is, for sake of discussion,
anyway.

Ah, but the licence is transitive, and if D may sue A, then C may also sue D,
since the GPL makes no distinction between who makes the distribution, apart
from the fact that A may relicence its code. But if he distributes it as part
of the GPL ...

Pardon me, I have no idea of what a "transitive" licence could be.
Sublicencing or relicencing is _explicitly_ not covered by GPL anyway.

Also I have no idea of what you mean "GPL makes no distinction between
who makes the distribution". GPL for sure places no restrictions on
how A can distribute his software. A needs no license for exercising
rights on the software. He is the _owner_ of rights. A cannot "break"
the GPL. A needs no GPL to distribute. Are you saying A may sue himself?

No. The source code is clearly the prefered form of modification, not some
random intermediate state A may be claiming is source.

In this context, it is. Only A may sue D for not distributing the source.
Whatever D distributes, D has to make A happy. If A is happy with D
distributing `dd if=/dev/random count=1` as source, no one can stop D
from doing that. Keep in mind A is the copyright holder. He grants
rights to third parties. No one but A can remove them.

Yep, so if A was giving us an explicit right to distribute his sources,
everyone would be happy, this not being the case, we have to take the
hypothesis that A will sue us at a later time.

A placed it under GPL. If that is not "explicit right to distribute his
source", I'm not able to think of anything that could be it.

[...]
I'm not following. Are you saying what if A is bought? That is
different. Well GPL is quite clear:

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
code as you receive it, ...

If D is distributing the source as received from A, D is in full
compliance. How could A sue D? If A distributed incomplete source
in the first place, it's not D's fault for sure. Do you really think
the following scenario is likely:

A to D: you must distribute the complete source, or the license will be
terminated!
D to A: gimme the complete source, and I'll distribute it.
A to D: no, I'm not willing to give you the full source of my firmware,
but you must distribute it anyway!

The result is that the code in question has to be stopped from being
distributed by D. But the case here is different, since A is not the sole
copyright owner, so he doesn't get to set random interpretations of what is
source code.

Definitely I'm not following. How can D be ordered to stop distributing
the software if A refuses to give the source? A is in violation. And
even if GPL can't be enforced that way, by no means D is in violation
when it's A that it's preventing D from complying.

The GPL says :

If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all.

The conditions of this licence are clear, the source code is the prefered form
of modification, so, if for "any other reason", you are not able to distribute
the source, then you "may not distribute the Program at all". The copyright
holder can, but there is no redistribution allowed. I will investigate about
if only A can sue over this though.

So you seriously think this makes sense?

A: you have to distribute the source, or the licence will be void
D: i am, i'm distributing the source you gave me
A: that is not the source, i was lying about it
D: then give me the right source, and I'll distribute it
A: No. I refuse to give you the right source, but expect you to distribute
it anyway, or i'll terminate the licence.

You seriouly think some judge may rule in favor of A? _If_ A sued D?
Well if you do, we can stop here. You'll never buy me on this.

The only way this can work the way you say is if A and D had a private
agreement, and no proof can be made by D this agreement ever existed.

Well, there is no agreement whatsoever about this, and we don't know the
interpretation of A.

But A released the software in public, and GPL'ed it. If A wants to keep
part of the source obscured, he had better to stay well away from any
court.

he could claim, as some did here, that obviously the fimrware was not GPLed,
but mere aggregation, and that he nowhere gave any right to distribute them.

"mere aggregation" refers to an action taken by a distributor. _You_
as debian are distributing the firmware as merely aggregated to the
kernel, assuming your intrepretation is right. That has nothing to do
with .c files.

Moreover, the firmare in not in binary form, but is part of a C source
file.

I think you're going no where. A cannot put a licence statement on
the top of a .c file stating it's GPL'ed, and then say that some part
of it is not covered because it was "merely aggregated". It makes no
sense, and there's nothing in the GPL about mere aggregation of sources.

That, in court? Is this really what you're afraid of?
The outcome is, very likely A will be forced to release the full source.
(and D forced to distribute it, but all D's we're talking of here are
very happy with the full disclosure scenario, aren't they?)

Imagine A refusing to give away the source code, and D is ordered to remove
the incriminated code it is illegally distributing from all its servers,
and
recall all those thousands of CD and DVD isos containing the code it
distributed, and being fined for each day it doesn't do so ?

Sorry, this is nonsense. D is well willing to distribute the source.
In this case, he _is_ distributing what A publicly stated to be the source.

Yep, apart from the fact that A never did publicly state such issue, but just
passed it under silence.

On the top of a .c file there's a nice copyright notice and licence statement,
isn't there? A placed it there. _You_ think it may be changed. But what
if A is fine with it?

That's all. You say what if A changed his mind about what the source is?
Well since it's still GPL'ed (we agree A can't chance the licence on the
fly, right?) A is to provide the new, complete version of the source.
Then, if and only if D refuses to distribute _that_ source, D is in
violation. GPL requires D to distribute source _as received by A_.
If A refuses to give the source, the specific requirement is not
enforceable.

No, the GPL itself voids the distribubtion and redistribution rights if the
specific requirement is not fullfilled. This doesn't make the requirement not
enforceable, but voids the whole GPL licence and makes the work not
distributable.

It makes D not suable. You can't actively prevent someone from doing
something he's supposed to do and the sue him for not doing it at the
same time.

But the GPL states that we must be able to distribute the sources, clearly
defines what said sources are, and states what happens if you can't fullfill
a clause of the GPL -> no right to distribute at all.

No. GPL says you must be _willing_ to distribute the sources, as received
by A. See, GPL covers the source. There's no way you can distribute
the software in binary/executable form, unless you get the source and
complile it. That's what you do here. You compile the hexstring, and
the firmware (in binary form) gets "aggregated" to the kernel binary.
If you distribute the result, you have to distribute the source _as
you received it_. That's all. If you do, you're fine.

I am not sure. If i where to get a copy of windows, and manage to install
it
without clicking on the "i agree" button, does that make it a legal copy of
windows to use ?

Come on, please, do not mix things up. I've said GPL'ed software. Last time
I checked, Windows was not GPL'ed (yet). :-)

What has the GPL to do with it ?

Nothing. You introduced Windows, not me. My point was that you can
break into Fort Knox, steal a Debian CD, and give it to a friend.
His licence is valid. Your acting may be a crime. GPL says nothing
about how you got your copy. So even if the distributor is breaking
GPL, people who obtained a copy from there are fine.

.TM.
--
____/ ____/ /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_____/ _____/ _/ Colombo@xxxxxx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/