[Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Apr 29, 2009, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Apr 26, 2009, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa at redhat.com> 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