[Solar-ututo-e] Fw: UTUTO-e: non-free kernel drivers/firmware

Jue Sep 2 02:47:17 CEST 2004

les copio la respuesta que me dio mako en dos mails

1) 
>
> Do you have more information about that propietaries drives in linux
> kernel?

There are drivers and firmware and I suspect they are slightly
different issues in terms of GPL compliance. In terms of freedom
though the issue is pretty clear cut. I don't know too much about it
-- I'm not a kernel hacker. But I can refer your tech folks to the
people in Debian who do know.

2)

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:24:28PM -0300, Diego Saravia wrote:
> do you believe that this issues affects the freedom status of
> ututo-e?

In my opinion, yes. In others', possibly not. Are you defining
software to refer to documentation on the system? I think this
question is open to debate. But what about software that runs on chips
other than your computer's CPU (like firmware)? Where do you draw the
line?  You may be able to define "software" in a very narrow sense
that will rescue your freedom status of ututo-e.

I don't think demanding "ultimate freedom -- right now" makes
sense. The GNU project used non-free software as a platform for
creating the GNU tool chain. They basically had no choice.

Do you use Google? It's non-free software. Do you uses a modem,
wireless card, Ethernet card, video card, or CPU with binary firmware?
It's all running non-free binary firmware -- which is software. Do you
think it's a different freedom issue if it's loaded by the kernel or
on the chip itself? Why? What about a mobile phone? That's running
non-free software too.

See what I mean?

We pick our battles and I think we need to understand that this is a
process and a goal. With current computers, I think a "100% free"
system may not even possible.

> you speak about documentation also, could you tell me more about it?

Yeah. Richard doesn't think that documentation needs to be held to the
same standards as software. The GNU GFDL includes and allows for
invariant non-removable sections, invariant non-removable
cover texts, acknowledgments, dedications, and invariant
endorsements. Few of these things would be permissible in a Free
Software license. Richard is advocating them all for good reason. But
there are good reasons for non-commercial use clauses on software too
(look at MAME for example which would sued out of existence without
the clause) but that doesn't make the license in question free.

For more information, do a Google search for "GFDL Position Debian"
and you'll come up with this position statement that sums of many of
the problems raised by the Debian community. A few of them I don't
agree with but most of them I do.

Also, RFCs are totally invariant. "For good reason" many would argue
but, like I said, I don't think good reasons change the importance of
the Freedom to modify. I think it's an absolute.

If you bring this up with Richard -- especially documentation, I would
prefer if you left myself and Debian out of the discussion. He seems
to harbor a bit of animosity toward Debian because of the nasty way
that a small number of developers treated him the last time the GFDL
really came up on Debian lists. I've been involved in internal
discussions with folks at FSF about the license and would really
prefer to not have name or organization as part of the discussion as
I'm afraid it might compromise the chance of seeing real change on this.

Regards,
Mako
--------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:57:33 -0300, Daniel Olivera -Mate.Cosido wrote
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> El Jue 26 Ago 2004 17:04, cristian escribió:
> > sería bueno ver la respuesta que le dan a la gente de Debian...
> >
> 
> Yo personalmente le envie a Mako preguntandole cuales eran los 
> drivers/firmwares que estan presentes en el kernel que se descarga 
> desde kernel.org.
> 
> Nosotros en UTUTO-e no aplicamos parches al kernel, ni se liberan 
> junto a este paquetes que contengan drivers/modules/firmware que no 
> sean de licencias libres.
> 
> Aun no he recibido la respuesta de mako.
> 
> Segun tengo entendido el kernel descargado desde kernel.org es 
> totalmente GPL y no usa driver/modules/firmwares de terceros que 
> posean licencias nos libres.
> 
> Pero igualmente hace ya una semana que envie el mail a Mako sin 
> respuesta aun.
> 
> Para nosotros es muy importante mantener el compromiso con el uso 
> exclusivo en nuestro sistema de software libre.
> Si sabemos que por ejemplo el uso de algunos modulos para modems 
> tipo Winmodem o USB son liberados bajo licencia no libres, es por 
> eso que no son aplicados al kernel.
> 
> Tambien hemos revisado el kernel en busca de algun indicio de algo 
> de lo indicado por Mako y no lo hemos encontrado.
> 
> Abrazos
> 
> - -- 
> Mate.Cosido (..aun fuera de la ley)
> (* UTUTO-e GNU System + Linux *) 
> (* 2.6.7 / XOrg 6.7.99 compilado con gcc 3.4.1 *)
> 
> Daniel Olivera (Mate.Cosido) -- Linux #267582 - AR #1832
> Telefono particular: 4207-1701 / 7688 - Cel: 5637-5979
> 
> Id gnupg: 0x889D8149 -- Servidor: pgpkeys.netsys.com.ar
> ICQ: 8368437 -- AIM/Yahoo: doliveralinux -- MSN : No uso
> Jabber: jabber.netsys.com.ar / ususario: mate.cosido
> 
> Estudien mucho para poder dominar la tecnica que permite
> dominar la naturaleza. CHE
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQFBNcdCmUZ7u+iPzsQRAkgFAJ9cX7+TiZZ2FHa64XHKql/jfBTWhgCeJkzm
> EIZbpbnvu01lZuFCMjLB84Y=
> =DFaJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Solar-ututo-e mailing list
> Solar-ututo-e en lists.ourproject.org
> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/solar-ututo-e

-- 
Diego Saravia 
dsa en unsa.edu.ar