| |||||||||||||
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"Posted Nov 9, 2010 18:20 UTC (Tue) by jebba (✭ supporter ✭, #4439)In reply to: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" by jmm82 Parent article: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"
So this stuff in the linux-2.6.xx.tar is just fine with you? Anyone suggesting they be removed is just playing politics?
Licence: Unknown, File: korg/k1212.dsp
I think *all* of those were "Found in hex form in the kernel source". Is that OK? Should we add another few hundred? Or better to remove?
How about these?
(Log in to post comments)
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 9, 2010 19:21 UTC (Tue) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] So this stuff in the linux-2.6.xx.tar is just fine with you? Anyone suggesting they be removed is just playing politics?Yes, on both counts.
If someone is self-motivated to do the work to split them out into a separate directory tree, whether in the cause of ideological purity or for other reasons, that's also just fine with me. If they then take the next step of removing them altogether in order to fork and distribute a less functional kernel - well, I think that's very foolish but ultimately harmless. That small number of people who feel that their karma is increased by following this route to ideological purity will cheer, while the rest of us will continue to use a distribution that actually runs on the machines we use.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 9, 2010 19:31 UTC (Tue) by jebba (✭ supporter ✭, #4439) [Link]
> while the rest of us will continue to use a distribution that actually runs on the machines we use.
Really? Do you need any of the above firmware on your machine? Still hanging on to that 1998 sound card?
Boot up a -libre kernel and see if it works. Perhaps your system *can* run a kernel with non-free software removed.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 10, 2010 18:04 UTC (Wed) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
I don't really understand what 'found in hex form in the kernel source' actually means - are these sections extracted from drivers of entirely unknown provenance? Why would they not be licensed in the same way as the containing code, which presumably is considered legally sound?
(I'm not asking rhetorically BTW; I'd just like to see some clarification of how this situation came about.)
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 10, 2010 20:40 UTC (Wed) by jebba (✭ supporter ✭, #4439) [Link]
> I don't really understand what 'found in hex form in the kernel source' actually means - are these sections extracted from drivers of entirely unknown provenance? Why would they not be licensed in the same way as the containing code, which presumably is considered legally sound?
Well, taking the first one on the list as an example, it appears so. The firmware was found at sound/pci/korg1212/korg1212-firmware.h and moved into firmware/. I tried to find where it was added in Linus' git and in the history.git but I can't see where the file was actually added. Most of the ones above are pretty ancient. The firmware can't be under the same license (GPLv2) because no source code is provided for the firmware.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 15:25 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>The firmware can't be under the same license (GPLv2) because no source code is provided for the firmware.
Ah, right. So the issue is that the 'source' initially available actually included binaries in textual form, making that source GPL incompatible, and the combined work thus (potentially) non-redistributable.
That makes sense (in a sigh-inducing, twisted sort of way :P) - thanks for clarifying.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 20:37 UTC (Thu) by chad.netzer (✭ supporter ✭, #4257) [Link]
Ah, but that is a copyright issue, and that, as far as I can see is *not* the topic of debate here. The kernel developers should obviously be concerned with clarifying and keeping clear the distinct copyright of the firmware (which moving into a separate directory, or tarball, may help). I think most everyone can agree on that. The issue really being discussed is that these binary firmware blobs represent non-free "taint" of the system/hardware in use, not the kernel itself. Hence, being "baited" into using "proprietary" hardware, even if the kernel drivers themselves are free.
It doesn't fly, at least not the part about accusing the Linux developers of complicity in "baiting" us into using non-free firmware. It would be similar to faulting Linux for allowing me to run a user-space binary that isn't "free". Should the kernel developers now be chastised for "baiting" us into using things like Matlab or Photoshop? Ridiculous, and FSFLA should be ashamed for framing their argument in such accusatory terms.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 4:00 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
Baiting is inducing, allowing means not standing in the way. There's a fundamental ethical and moral difference in there.
Consider smart fish, and scenarios in which one fish sees another going for a piece of food, that may or may not be bait around a hook.
1. the first fish knows it's bait around a hook, or in a trap
1.a) the first fish says there, go for it!
1.b) the first fish gets in the way and says hey, that's bait, you'll get trapped, you sure you want to?, so the other fish, if still decided to take the bait, has to take a detour to get to it
2. the first fish can't tell whether there's a hook or a trap, so it says nothing and doesn't stand in the way
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 4:44 UTC (Fri) by chad.netzer (✭ supporter ✭, #4257) [Link]
These fishing analogies you keep using really aren't the best metaphors, imo. Can you phrase it in terms of sports or movies?
Or better yet, drop the analogies, since we aren't children; this is our field, we basically understand the scenario. Are cellphone technology providers to be chastised for "baiting" me into use one, while not providing free/libre firmware (even if the the OS is free), or are they to be thanked for allowing people to be able to call an ambulance when they are having a heart attack on a camping trip? I'll take the freedom to survive in that scenario.
If the firmware blobs are a copyright problem, by all means say so plainly. But to state that the Linux developers have set a trap for users, is low.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 4:56 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
I don't see that their offering you the ability to make calls at emergencies justifies or legitimizes their depriving you of your freedoms. The ability to make calls is still a way of luring you to give up your privacy and your freedom (there's a reason why these tracking devices are called *cell* phones :-) So, thank them for what you're grateful of, but also complain and use your freedom and power of choice to demand respect. Don't let the bait buy your silence or make you complacent.
I'm not concerned with the copyriht issues. They're just a distraction. Even if there was no copyright issue whatsoever, the blobs would still be non-Free Software (i.e., software that deprives users of their four essential software freedoms), and inducing people to accept them is socially harmful practice that proponents of software freedom had better not engage in.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 6:45 UTC (Fri) by chad.netzer (✭ supporter ✭, #4257) [Link]
I want your pledge that when one of the providers of these firmware blobs has said, "Fine, here's the register interface to the custom chip we built, feel free to write your own firmware.", you'll refuse to use them until they also provide the VHDL files they used to create it. Because *clearly* there can be no design firewall that you don't deem as an affront to your freedom.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 7:28 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
Wait a minute! You're thinking of firmware as pure configuration data, with a few dozens of registers set to a certain fixed values so that the device does the job it was designed to do? That's is not what this is about! That's not non-Free Software, it doesn't even qualify as software!
The blobs we're talking about contain machine instructions that run on actual computers. Many of them are regularly modified fixing errors or even adding features. Some implement anti-features. You remember when Linux fit in a single floppy disk, and with a couple of floppy disks you could have an entire functional Free GNU+Linux operating system? Some of the blobs we're facing these days wouldn't fit in one of those floppy disks! They're entire operating systems for the computers hiding inside our computers, often hiding from you their true power.
Please help us (re)conquer freedom in that field! Don't let the expanding meaning of firmware fool you.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 8:09 UTC (Fri) by chad.netzer (✭ supporter ✭, #4257) [Link]
I'm not sure why you chose to interpret my statements that way. I said elsewhere, for example, that a distinction must be made between firmware blobs that run outside of the kernel (ie. on processors not running Linux), and binary driver blobs which run in kernel space. So I, and others, are aware that the firmware blobs represent code and running programs. Not just "configuration data".
Whatever. You don't appear to be responding to my points. Fair enough. A campaign to publicize the problems with binary code in the form of firmware blobs is perhaps a good one. But the way you go about it seems all wrong to me. It's kind of like PETA. A core part of their message (let's treat animals humanely) is pretty sane and agreeable. And yet they go about promoting it like complete dicks. I've stopped being a strict vegetarian, in very small part, because I didn't wanna end up like those kooks. I hope the same doesn't happen to my attitudes about Free Software...
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 18:35 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
> I'm not sure why you chose to interpret my statements that way
Because the register file interface is hardly enough to write the software to run on the embedded computer, but it would likely be plenty to configure a device whose firmware is just configuration data.
Now, perhaps the VHDL description would be desirable to have, but if the embedded device contains a general-purpose programmable computer, having a description of its ISA would come in handier than the VHDL description for the purposes of writing the software to run on it.
Thanks for your apparent support to the campaign. If you can find better ways to spread the message, by all means go for it, and be sure to let us know!
Freegards, ;-)
|
|||||||||||||