Joe Wreschnig wrote: > There are four classes of firmware: > > 1. Firmware which no one has any permission to distribute. These have to > go right away, or be relicensed. Thankfully, there are few of these, and > the kernel team seems to be willing to help pursue the relicensing. > > 2. Firmware which is released under GPL-compatible terms, with source. > Everyone loves these, they can stay (e.g. the Adaptec drivers), and we > encourage other manufacturers to do the same. > > 3. Firmware which is released under GPL-compatible terms but with no > source available. > > 4. Firmware which is released under GPL-incompatible terms with no > source available. > > (There is potentially a fifth class, firmware released under > GPL-incompatible terms with source available. I don't believe anyone has > found such a beast yet.) > > The debate is over 3) and 4). Specifically, > > 3a) What is firmware "source"? > 3b) If the firmware has source, does the DFSG apply to it (i.e. do we > need it)? Unequivocally yes with the new DFSG, but some of the GRs (not > voted on yet) may revert sarge to the "old" DFSG, and the RM's > interpretation of that lets us release such firmware.
I would argue that while the new Social Contract makes it unambiguously clear that the DFSG applies to non-programs (such as documentation, etc), both the old and new Social Contracts clearly apply to "software". While it has been disputed that non-programs such as documentation are software, firmware seems to be a program and therefore software, which is covered under both Socal Contracts. > Current policy is that firmware types 1, 3, and 4 have to go. We cannot > change our policy such that 1 can stay; that is illegal. If 3) and 4) > are not copyright infringement (I and others believe they are, Michael > and others believe they are not, that is what this debate is about), we > *could* potentially suspend the SC/DFSG and release with them. I think > this is also a bad idea, but it's feasible. If 3) and 4) are copyright > infringement, then we must remove them as well. Agreed. For what it's worth, I also believe that cases 3 and 4 are copyright infringement. - Josh Triplett
