Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

[Les Mikesell]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> You aggregate something for distribution.  It's not a whole unless the
>> components are combined.  And while this may be a fuzzy area for
>> things covered by the stock GPL, the version that covers Linux
>> specifically says
> 
> Parse error, end of sentence not detected.  Please fix and recompile
> ;-)

Sorry, after I looked it up I decided that the word 'user' in the 
exception would have been confusing here and left it out, forgetting 
about the dangling part.

>> No, what exempts it is the fact that they are separate things both in
>> their origin and destination.
> 
> And how about during the split-second in which distribution occurs?
> Aren't the components combined at that time?

Aggregated.

>> No, you can take separate works and put them together as long as they
>> remain separate works - as the stuff loaded into a device's firmware
>> is separate from the kernel.
> 
> You're looking at only one side of the question.

And you are only looking at the middle when it is aggregated, not when 
it originates or is deployed to its separate destination.

> The other is, is the
> kernel separate from the device's firmware?

That's a different question, unrelated to how that firmware got into the 
device.  You might make a plausible case that the GPL restricts code 
from being run on hardware with non-GPL bios and other firmware. I don't 
think I'd agree but it would be fun trying to work out the difference 
between calling something in ROM and a linked library.

 > As of today, it very
> clearly isn't.

I don't think that's clear at all, but I think in terms of interfaces 
and that pretty much by definition, one piece of code ends where the 
other interface starts - and since using those interfaces is the whole 
point of having the copy of code I'd have to consider it fair use of 
your copy.

> Or, what evidence can you provide that the kernel is
> an independent work from the firmwares, against the various pieces of
> evidence that it is dependent on them?

It's an interesting question, but it doesn't really relate to copyrights 
or derived works except in the upside down world of the GPL restrictions 
where no legal rulings exist.

>> Please... try to imagine the time when that was written and think
>> about tapes full of commercial software instead.
> 
> Or rather think about the tapes full of GNU software under GPL, LGPL
> and a bunch of other Free Software packages under various other
> licenses, some GPL-compatible, some not, built for various operating
> systems.

I can't think about that without remembering the time when GPL software 
could not have existed without a commercial OS hosting it, and that 
history makes me believe that the GPL itself cannot prohibit this 
co-existence even if it is somewhat less necessary now.  Saying it does 
would seem like going back in time and killing your grandparents so you 
can't exist now...

>> In the past the FSF has claimed that something should be considered a
>> derived work and covered by the GPL if it needed a GPL'd library to
>> function, even if it was not distributed together.
> 
> IIRC the reasoning goes like, when it is linked with the library, or
> gets code from library header files, the copied portions provide
> strong indication that the program was developed as a work based on
> the library.  And then, the copyrightable copied portions actually
> make the resulting work actually derived from the library, even if its
> sources and object files weren't.  And then, if you use dynamic
> linking, this copies far less from the library, but it doesn't change
> the status in any meaningful way.

Using header files as needed to make something work was pretty much 
established as fair use in AT&T's failed suit against BSDI years ago.  I 
don't think there was an actual ruling but they gave up on any hope of 
winning.  The FSF claimed their argument about functionality applied 
even if no work was copied.

>>> But I think we can agree that _until_ there's a ruling, including the
>>> firmware in the kernel is just a gratuitous risk.
> 
>> The same risk goes with any GPL covered work.
> 
> Nope.  The risk that there might be some unknown restricted portion of
> code hiding in a GPLed program is quite different from that of a known
> restricted portion.

We know the GPL imposes restrictions.  That's a given, not a risk. But 
it doesn't restrict against aggregating other things.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com