On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 08:09:23AM +0300, Sami Liedes wrote: > Revisiting a bit old issue, as I haven't seen this specific point > discussed, although related points have been: > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 05:03:49AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > severity 383481 important > > thanks > > > > When Kyle cloned this bug, his comment was: > > > > > Wow. Looks a lot like copying register bank settings. Much like > > > the drivers listed in Bug#383403. > > > > I don't believe there's any prevailing sentiment that the DFSG requires > > non-numeric "source" in the case of register settings being changed; indeed, > > various discussions on debian-vote and the like have explicitly acknowledged > > that in cases when we *know* we're dealing with registers rather than code > > compiled for an embedded processor, no source code is needed. I'm going to > > go out on a limb then and downgrade this bug; it is arguably still a bug > > since there is room for improvement to the source, but it's not an RC bug. > > We're talking about Linux kernel in this bug, and Linux is GPL, so for > the code to be distributable, it definitely needs to be in "preferred > form for modification" as per GPL, right (or alternatively we need > permission from every GPL code contributor to the kernel)? Although I > don't know if Debian makes exceptions for the kernel in this issue > since upstream doesn't treat it with so much care...
Notice that if the obfuscate code is just a firmware or register setting copied to an external component (the graphic core), then it is a separate work embedded in the the main linux source, and not a derivative work linked in the source code. See discussion on the topic on debian-legal a couple of years ago, but the analogy is a free zip-like tool which create executable-auto-unzip binaries containing non-free code. Remember that the obfuscated code does not run on the same CPU as the linux kernel, not even in a SMP-like way, and thus there is a clear delimitation between the two works, which confirms the above analysis. That said, this means there is no legal problem in the obfuscated code being in the linux kernel, but : 1) the obfuscated code needs to be clearly identified as such in the licensing info of the file containing it, and not placed by default under the GPL as it is often done. IF it is under the default GPL, it is indeed undistributable. 2) the fact that we can distribute it, does not mean that the we debian consider it as free, and we should remove non-free code as stated per the DFSG and the messed-up vote on the topic two years ago. Finally, one last point to clarify here. Not all code is copyrighteable, and it has to be of a size suitable for copyright. This excludes for example api header files (.h) for well defined interfaces, and containing no comment (opinion of the FSF when asked about using the amiga partition table header files when adding support for them in parted), but probably also just a bunch of register written to a chip. Please bounce this to the list, as i am being censored. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
