On Apr 29, 2009, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Apr 26, 2009, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> If we find these non-redistributable firmware bits anywhere, we'd remove >> them. Now how abuot we let test your assertion above :-) with another concrete case? drm-nouveau.patch, applied to Fedora kernels, contains GPU microcode that, according to comments in the patch, were extracted from the non-Free nVidia drivers, in spite of the non-reverse engineering provisions of the license nVidia grants its customers, and, regardless, copied in a way that is not permitted by that license, possibly without permission from the copyright holder. http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html 2.1.2 Linux/FreeBSD/OpenSolaris Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux or FreeBSD operating systems, or other operating systems derived from the source code to these operating systems, may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files). http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/kernel/drm-nouveau.patch?revision=1.8.6.10&view=markup +/* These blocks of "magic numbers" are actually a microcode that the GPU uses + * to control how graphics contexts get saved and restored between PRAMIN + * and PGRAPH during a context switch. We're currently using values seen + * in mmio-traces of the binary driver. + */ I doubt the use of mmio traces to obtain a piece of code makes the code exempt from copyright, and I don't see any grant of permission to distribute those copyrighted pieces of code on their own. And, before you get too excited about their being so small, search for nv50_grctx.h in that same patch, and you'll see a much bigger problem. Now, don't get me wrong. I fight for software freedoms, including the freedom to modify and distribute software, regardless of whether it's Free. I wouldn't want to oppose the freedom to distribute any software whatsoever, even such harmful software as non-Free Software. However, if you want to abide by the unjust laws that are in effect, and by the policies the Fedora community agreed upon (and by your statement above), I don't see how you could proceed with the distribution of that software (even if you regard it as non-software, but rather firmware) once you become aware of the problem. Now, it could be that the authors of the patch (I know nothing about them) live under jurisdictions in which prohibitions on reverse engineering are not enforceable, and in which copyright can't be used to prevent the distribution of these pieces of code. But would this make their distribution permitted in more draconian and lawyer-ridden jurisdictions, or would Fedora be putting itself and its redistributors at the mercy of nVidia's legal department? Hopefully the authors got any permission needed from nVidia. But there's no evidence of that in the patch, and I don't know for a fact that they did. Do you? -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
