Moving the firmware out [LWN.net]

Moving the firmware out

Posted Jun 6, 2008 18:58 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)
Parent article: Moving the firmware out

By making it easier to put all of the firmware in one non-GPL tree, hardware vendors—and their lawyers—may be willing to allow the firmware to be distributed.

I just don't get this. Under what possible theory based on the Linux copyright would the hardware vendor think it's a bad idea to permit people to distribute its firmware?

The implication I take is that some hardware vendors don't allow me take their firmware object code, bind it up with the Linux kernel, and give it to someone else. While there's an obvious theory that I would be violating Linux authors' copyright doing that, how could it hurt the hardware vendor?

(Log in to post comments)

Firmware distribution

Posted Jun 7, 2008 14:22 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

I can see strategic, logistic and practical considerations against distributing the firmware with the Linux kernel.

A hardware vendor may (misguidedly of maliciously) think that it is a bad idea that Linux distributions carry its firmware blob. One trivial cause might be that the vendor wants its users to upgrade to the latest hardware. We have seen something similar with proprietary graphics drivers which do not support older cards, and with Vista drivers too. Stupid (new customers would not exactly come running to our door), but possible.

Also, a malicious party (say, SCO) may buy the copyrights from a hardware vendor with the sole intent of bringing a copyright dispute against the kernel. While the firmware can be ripped out in a matter of hours from the current version, it would cause a logistic nightmare to take it out of all distributed kernels. No matter how stupid it is (since firmware is there to be distributed), but we have seen how meritless cases can drag on for years.

Even if all vendors agree, you need written permission to distribute copyrighted material. Linux contains a lot of firmware binary blobs. Now, are all permissions stored in the kernel tree? How can a distribution make sure that it has permission for all binary blobs? What about redistribution rights? This is even before considering the problem with GPL linking that others have pointed out.

These issues may not have a solid basis, but people have been known to do dumber things. Even we watching from the sidelines can surely understand how e.g. a Red Hat lawyer might be worried to see these gray blobs in their distribution.

Firmware distribution

Posted Jun 7, 2008 15:55 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

I can see strategic, logistic and practical considerations against distributing the firmware with the Linux kernel.

Those are all good reasons, but they don't seem to have anything to do with the post to which you replied, which asks the question:

Under what possible theory based on the Linux copyright would the hardware vendor think it's a bad idea to permit people to distribute its firmware?

Some of the reasons you give are motiviations for people other than the hardware vendor to oppose having firmware distributed in the kernel. The others are reasons not based on the Linux copyright.

The article implied that there are hardware vendors who don't want their firmware distributed with the Linux kernel, but would be OK with it being distributed in a package which is copyright-licensed more liberally.

Firmware distribution

Posted Jun 7, 2008 16:32 UTC (Sat) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]

> The article implied that there are hardware vendors who don't want their
> firmware distributed with the Linux kernel, but would be OK with it being
> distributed in a package which is copyright-licensed more liberally.

The lkml thread seems to indicate there are some hardware vendors who are unwilling to let
their firmware be distributed with the kernel.  Perhaps they are concerned (rightly or
wrongly) that allowing that would subject _their_ code to the GPL.

jake

Firmware distribution

Posted Jun 15, 2008 11:12 UTC (Sun) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

This would, from my (non-lawyer) understanding, be correct.  At least as I 
understand US law (other nations may be different), it would be impossible 
to force them to reveal sources, since you can't do that with someone 
else's code.  However...

It's entirely possible, even probable given enough time and the hair 
brained legal theories some come up with (the GPL is an anti-trust 
violation, riiiggghhttt, glad the Judge thought the same and threw out 
that case), that someone (say a competitor) claiming copyright interest in 
the kernel might decide to try to force the code out of these people based 
on it shipping with the kernel for so long.  As I said above, according to 
my understanding and by US law at least, that wouldn't be possible.  
However, should someone get the hair-brained idea to try it, given the 
right circumstances (see SCO), it could drag out forever, costing the 
hardware company in question all sorts of money it would certainly rather 
be spending elsewhere.  Not everyone has the resources of an IBM.

Thus, while it shouldn't be a legal danger in the end, it's enough of an 
economic risk thru exposure to simple legal threat, even if ultimately 
unsuccessful, that I can easily see a company's accountants and lawyers 
combining to veto any permission to ship firmware with the kernel.

But separate it into a non-GPL entangled tarball, and the legal threat 
gets much less.

All that said, the threat is really the reverse, as explained by others, 
that a SCO could ultimately hold the kernel (at least current and past 
shipping and supported versions, and thus everyone using them) hostage, 
with things as-is, due to the "if you can't ship it and comply, you can't 
ship it" wording), not anyone doing any more than tying up a few legal 
resources up for awhile trying to get the code out of the firmware folks.  
Thus, while it may be a bit of an economic risk for the firmware folks, 
it's a SERIOUS risk for those depending on the kernel, all the more reason 
to get the separation done as expeditiously as possible.  I'm glad 
someone's now attacking the issue, as it /is/ a danger, there are SCOs in 
the world, and as such, it needed addressed.

Duncan