On Thu, 26 May 2005, Sven Luther wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 08:53:44PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Wed, 25 May 2005, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > + * Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware > > > > data > > > > + * in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this copyright notice > > > > is > > > > + * accompanying it. > > > > Would we actually be distributing the hexadecimal format, or would > > we be distributing the packed binary[1] representation of the > > hexadecimal format? > > I guess that if there is a 1-1 mapping between the two > representations, then it falls under the "equivalent" format thingy.
Probably, but it has the quite real tendency to become a lawyer bomb... a simple clarification from them should be good enough. > > While it's probably ok the way it is written, if they're going to > > go through the trouble of drafting a change, they should make it > > clear that it's also ok to distribute the firmware data in the > > packed binary form, assuming that's actually what will be > > distributed. > > What good is this packed binary for ? Also, the way we are going to > distribute it apart from under hexadecimal format, is by > distributing the compiled binary driver, which is not clear in the > above maybe ? Well, presumably that's what the driver is actually going to be uploading to the device, not doing the transformation from a hexadecimal character array to binary, then uploading it. Furthermore, if it eventually is decided that the driver+firmware compiled module is a derivative work of the driver, then we may need to separate out the firmware completely. Ideally the license would clearly allow this. [To briefly address the listing of acceptable forms issue here; I agree that that's the wrong thing to do. The ideal situtation would be to allow distribution of any transformation of the format... (or if necessary, any reversible transformation...)] > 2) distribution as part of a binary module, without necessarily > any copyright notice attached, which would be a pain. Since the > GPL gives access to the source of the driver when the binary > module is available, it also gives access by transition to the > copyright notice in question under 1). If the GPL compells you to provide the copyright notice under 1), then it compells you to provide the source to this binary snippet. [You can't have it doing one without it also doing the other.] Don Armstrong -- Our days are precious, but we gladly see them going If in their place we find a thing more precious growing A rare, exotic plant, our gardener's heart delighting A child whom we are teaching, a booklet we are writing -- Frederick R�_Wisdom of the Brahmans_ [Hermann Hesse _Glass Bead Game_] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
