[gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Vincent Launchbury]

Hi,

I recently emailed the Gentoo PR team, voicing my concerns about the
amount of non-free software within Gentoo. I got an interesting response
from Sebastian Pipping, who said that while Gentoo is all about choice,
including the choice to install non-free software, the project is
interested in making it easy for people to run a 100% free system,
should they choose that path.

I found out about the license filtering feature in the dev version of
portage, and used it to remove all the non-free software from my
system. However, it wasn't a perfect experience. Based on what Sebastian
had to say, and my own experience using it, I have a few suggestions.

1) Not all of the licenses are completely accurate. For example, the
Linux kernels are listed as soley GPL-2, yet they contain blobs of
non-free firmware. Perhaps a general-purpose "not-free" license could be
appended to such packages. This would only affect people who choose to
use the feature. It could be minused from the FSF-APPROVED group for
example.

Also relating to this, what is freedist? The package app-text/dos2unix
lists 'freedist' as its license, and /usr/portage/licenses/freedist says
only "Freely Distributable". Several other packages do this, and I'm
sure it's not correct. I'm not entirely sure, but I think the dos2unix
package is from http://www.thefreecountry.com/tofrodos/, which clearly
says its GPLv2. Packages like this could be looked into and fixed.

2) There are no free versions of the kernel in the main tree. The Latin
American FSF maintains blob-free kernels at
http://www.linux-libre.fsfla.org/pub/linux-libre/releases/. They could
be added alongside the official vanilla ebuilds.

3) Some free software packages bring in non-free optional dependencies
by default. For example, media-gfx/imagemagick brings in
media-fonts/corefonts. As suggested by Sebastian, a free profile could be
created, that changes these defaults, to reduce the hassle of
maintaining a free system. Again, this would only affect users who
choose to use that profile.

4) Using something like ACCEPT_LICENSES="-* @FSF-APPROVED" is a good
start, but its quite a hassle to keep checking all the licenses. One
annoyance is packages like sys-devel/gcc. gcc has the libgcc license,
which is just GPLv2+, with some extra permissions granted. Although it's
important to make such a distinction, these extra freedoms are
irrelevant to license filtering.

I suppose the only feasible way to fix this would be to expand the
license groups in /usr/portage/profiles/license_groups. Would it cause
any problems if they were quite large?

Another option might be to introduce an optional IS_FREE="yes/no" option
to the ebuild files, which could override the other license settings.

5) Documentation on how to set up and maintain a fully free system could
be added.


To summarize, my general idea is to fix some licensing issues, introduce
the libre kernels and have a 100% free profile that would create the
least possible amount of hassle for anyone using it. This in turn would
make Gentoo more accessible to the free software community, without
affecting people that don't use the profile.

This is my first post here, so I apologize if it's misdirected. I'm not
sure if I'd really be able to help much on the technical side, but if
this garners any cooperation, I'll gladly help out with anything I can.
If someone could point me in the right direction, I'd be very grateful.

Kind Regards,
Vincent Launchbury.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Rémi Cardona]

Le 28/12/2009 06:36, Vincent Launchbury a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> I recently emailed the Gentoo PR team, voicing my concerns about the
> amount of non-free software within Gentoo. I got an interesting response
> from Sebastian Pipping, who said that while Gentoo is all about choice,
> including the choice to install non-free software, the project is
> interested in making it easy for people to run a 100% free system,
> should they choose that path.

Gentoo - like the rest of Free and Open Source Software - isn't about
choice, it's about empowering users.

Gentoo gives you tools and documentation to do whatever you wish. It
doesn't mean that we (Gentoo) _have_ to support it.

With that out of the way, moving on to the rest of the mail.

> 1) Not all of the licenses are completely accurate. For example, the
> Linux kernels are listed as soley GPL-2, yet they contain blobs of
> non-free firmware.

Indeed, that's a very good point. And that's precisely why I was against
ACCEPT_LICENSE to begin with.

It's a good idea on paper, but it's just not feasible at a large scale
(like portage) without a proper _team_ of devoted people sifting through
code and license blobs to make it useful. I'm also pretty sure a couple
lawyers would be needed as well.

Unless people dedicate time and effort, ACCEPT_LICENSE is useless.

[snip]

The rest of your points are indeed all valid as well.

I can only encourage you to either work with individual developers to
get ebuilds fixed (USE=bindist or whatever) or join our ranks to fix
this yourself if you really want a "pure" Free Gentoo.

> This is my first post here, so I apologize if it's misdirected. I'm not
> sure if I'd really be able to help much on the technical side, but if
> this garners any cooperation, I'll gladly help out with anything I can.
> If someone could point me in the right direction, I'd be very grateful.

I'd say this is probably better suited for gentoo-project, but it's
probably ok to start here, to gauge interest :)

Best of luck

Rémi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:36:34 -0500
Vincent Launchbury <vincent@doublecreations.com> wrote:

> Also relating to this, what is freedist? The package app-text/dos2unix
> lists 'freedist' as its license, and /usr/portage/licenses/freedist
> says only "Freely Distributable". Several other packages do this, and
> I'm sure it's not correct. I'm not entirely sure, but I think the
> dos2unix package is from http://www.thefreecountry.com/tofrodos/,
> which clearly says its GPLv2. Packages like this could be looked into
> and fixed.

No, that would be app-text/tofrodos (see bug #225903 [1] for details
- some of the confusion over where the app-text/dos2unix sources
  originated was discussed there). 


Regards,
     jer


[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=225903

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Rémi Cardona <remi@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Le 28/12/2009 06:36, Vincent Launchbury a écrit :
>> 1) Not all of the licenses are completely accurate. For example, the
>> Linux kernels are listed as soley GPL-2, yet they contain blobs of
>> non-free firmware.
>
> Indeed, that's a very good point. And that's precisely why I was against
> ACCEPT_LICENSE to begin with.
>
> It's a good idea on paper, but it's just not feasible at a large scale
> (like portage) without a proper _team_ of devoted people sifting through
> code and license blobs to make it useful. I'm also pretty sure a couple
> lawyers would be needed as well.
>

I think we can simply follow debian and fedora's lead on this. They
have the lawyers, and being in the same bowl as them would be a good
idea if any problems ever crop up. One area where we're in a fishy
situation (distinct from debian/fedora) is our distribution of isos
and stages without the adjoining sources[1]. This situation always
makes me queasy. But I'm digressing here...

> Unless people dedicate time and effort, ACCEPT_LICENSE is useless.
>

Not entirely useless, and maintainers can, and should, spend time
making sure ACCEPT_LICENSE is complete and accurate.

> [snip]
>
> The rest of your points are indeed all valid as well.
>
> I can only encourage you to either work with individual developers to
> get ebuilds fixed (USE=bindist or whatever) or join our ranks to fix
> this yourself if you really want a "pure" Free Gentoo.
>

++ on this. We're a direct-to-users distro; we empower you and give
you the means to empower yourself. We probably have the easiest and
most direct way to get recruited (although it's strenous on the
recruiters side ;).


1. Actually, I was thinking we could take the result at the end of
src_prepare, tarball it up, do it for all the packages we have in the
iso, tar up all *those* and serve the end result up too.

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Jeremy Olexa]

Vincent Launchbury wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I recently emailed the Gentoo PR team, voicing my concerns about the
> amount of non-free software within Gentoo. I got an interesting response
> from Sebastian Pipping, who said that while Gentoo is all about choice,
> including the choice to install non-free software, the project is
> interested in making it easy for people to run a 100% free system,
> should they choose that path.
> 
> I found out about the license filtering feature in the dev version of
> portage, and used it to remove all the non-free software from my
> system. However, it wasn't a perfect experience. Based on what Sebastian
> had to say, and my own experience using it, I have a few suggestions.
> 
> 1) Not all of the licenses are completely accurate. For example, the
> Linux kernels are listed as soley GPL-2, yet they contain blobs of
> non-free firmware. Perhaps a general-purpose "not-free" license could be
> appended to such packages. This would only affect people who choose to
> use the feature. It could be minused from the FSF-APPROVED group for
> example.
> 
> Also relating to this, what is freedist? The package app-text/dos2unix
> lists 'freedist' as its license, and /usr/portage/licenses/freedist says
> only "Freely Distributable". Several other packages do this, and I'm
> sure it's not correct. I'm not entirely sure, but I think the dos2unix
> package is from http://www.thefreecountry.com/tofrodos/, which clearly
> says its GPLv2. Packages like this could be looked into and fixed.

File bugs mate. Licensing is not exactly clear to all users or devs.  As 
can be seen here[1] for dos2unix. It sounds like you care in this area, 
so get involved.

[1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=177822

-Jeremy

> 
> 2) There are no free versions of the kernel in the main tree. The Latin
> American FSF maintains blob-free kernels at
> http://www.linux-libre.fsfla.org/pub/linux-libre/releases/. They could
> be added alongside the official vanilla ebuilds.
> 
> 3) Some free software packages bring in non-free optional dependencies
> by default. For example, media-gfx/imagemagick brings in
> media-fonts/corefonts. As suggested by Sebastian, a free profile could be
> created, that changes these defaults, to reduce the hassle of
> maintaining a free system. Again, this would only affect users who
> choose to use that profile.
> 
> 4) Using something like ACCEPT_LICENSES="-* @FSF-APPROVED" is a good
> start, but its quite a hassle to keep checking all the licenses. One
> annoyance is packages like sys-devel/gcc. gcc has the libgcc license,
> which is just GPLv2+, with some extra permissions granted. Although it's
> important to make such a distinction, these extra freedoms are
> irrelevant to license filtering.
> 
> I suppose the only feasible way to fix this would be to expand the
> license groups in /usr/portage/profiles/license_groups. Would it cause
> any problems if they were quite large?
> 
> Another option might be to introduce an optional IS_FREE="yes/no" option
> to the ebuild files, which could override the other license settings.
> 
> 5) Documentation on how to set up and maintain a fully free system could
> be added.
> 
> 
> To summarize, my general idea is to fix some licensing issues, introduce
> the libre kernels and have a 100% free profile that would create the
> least possible amount of hassle for anyone using it. This in turn would
> make Gentoo more accessible to the free software community, without
> affecting people that don't use the profile.
> 
> This is my first post here, so I apologize if it's misdirected. I'm not
> sure if I'd really be able to help much on the technical side, but if
> this garners any cooperation, I'll gladly help out with anything I can.
> If someone could point me in the right direction, I'd be very grateful.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Vincent Launchbury.
> 
> 

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4441 bytes --]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:36:34AM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
> 1) Not all of the licenses are completely accurate. For example, the
> Linux kernels are listed as soley GPL-2, yet they contain blobs of
> non-free firmware. Perhaps a general-purpose "not-free" license could be
> appended to such packages. This would only affect people who choose to
> use the feature. It could be minused from the FSF-APPROVED group for
> example.
Actually, this is a case where the license on the ebuild is wrong, not
the license group. The kernel ebuilds should have GPL-2 and something
else, and by definition should not pass @FSF-APPROVED alone.

> Also relating to this, what is freedist? The package app-text/dos2unix
> lists 'freedist' as its license, and /usr/portage/licenses/freedist says
> only "Freely Distributable". Several other packages do this, and I'm
> sure it's not correct. I'm not entirely sure, but I think the dos2unix
> package is from http://www.thefreecountry.com/tofrodos/, which clearly
> says its GPLv2. Packages like this could be looked into and fixed.
tofrodos is NOT dos2unix. If you compare the sources you'll see they are
radically different.

The COPYRIGHT file in dos2unix is actually a 2-clause BSD license. I've
updated the ebuild suitably.

Yes, we do definitely need to review licenses on packages where they
aren't clear, correct any mistakes.

> 2) There are no free versions of the kernel in the main tree. The Latin
> American FSF maintains blob-free kernels at
> http://www.linux-libre.fsfla.org/pub/linux-libre/releases/. They could
> be added alongside the official vanilla ebuilds.
File a bug with some ebuilds.

> 3) Some free software packages bring in non-free optional dependencies
> by default. For example, media-gfx/imagemagick brings in
> media-fonts/corefonts. As suggested by Sebastian, a free profile could be
> created, that changes these defaults, to reduce the hassle of
> maintaining a free system. Again, this would only affect users who
> choose to use that profile.
A profile is not the answer here.
An optional DEP block || ( media-fonts/corefonts ... ) where the other
item does resolve using ACCEPT_LICENSES is what should be used.

In this line of work, we would greatly appreciate bugs being filed for
all cases where dependencies are not resolvable with your reasonable
ACCEPT_LICENSES setting.

> 4) Using something like ACCEPT_LICENSES="-* @FSF-APPROVED" is a good
> start, but its quite a hassle to keep checking all the licenses. One
> annoyance is packages like sys-devel/gcc. gcc has the libgcc license,
> which is just GPLv2+, with some extra permissions granted. Although it's
> important to make such a distinction, these extra freedoms are
> irrelevant to license filtering.
> 
> I suppose the only feasible way to fix this would be to expand the
> license groups in /usr/portage/profiles/license_groups. Would it cause
> any problems if they were quite large?
No, the file can become a lot larger before any problems come up.
I deliberately introduced @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE to help packaging of
the 10.x release. They simply set that into their ACCEPT_LICENSES and
then we're reasonable set.

In your case, I propose that we add one or more stacked groups, with an
initial content as such:

License group name: LIBRE-FREE
Purpose: easily selectable license group for libre-free systems.
Initial license group contents:
@FSF-APPROVED @GPL-COMPATIBLE @OSI-APPROVED @LIBRE-FREE-1

License group name: LIBRE-FREE-1
Purpose: license group to put additional special-case libre-free
licenses in.
Initial license group contents:
libgcc libstdc++ gcc-runtime-library-exception-3.1

We might be able to merge LIBRE-FREE-1 directly into the LIBRE-FREE
entry, the portage folk would be able to answer if there would be a
performance benefit to having it split or not.
 
> Another option might be to introduce an optional IS_FREE="yes/no" option
> to the ebuild files, which could override the other license settings.
No.

> 5) Documentation on how to set up and maintain a fully free system could
> be added.
Under my license_group proposal:
# echo 'ACCEPT_LICENSES="-* @LIBRE-FREE"' >>/etc/make.conf
done.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 330 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Richard Freeman]

On 12/28/2009 01:56 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Actually, this is a case where the license on the ebuild is wrong, not
> the license group. The kernel ebuilds should have GPL-2 and something
> else, and by definition should not pass @FSF-APPROVED alone.

Is this appropriate?  The kernel sources indicate that they are licensed 
under GPLv2, and they make no mention of other licenses for any 
component of the sources.

Perhaps Linus/etc are wrong about this - but shouldn't that be something 
that people take up with them, unless Gentoo gets a letter from some 
lawyers claiming that we're infringing?

For that matter, for all we know kdelibs contains 10 lines of code from 
Jack Smith, who didn't agree to the LGPL and those 10 lines are under 
the Jack Smith Distribution License.  However, it would be best if Jack 
Smith were to take this up with the KDE team and not with every distro 
that uses KDE.

If Gentoo starts second-guessing the licenses on packages, do we then 
become liable if we fail to do this for a package?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 05:15:06PM -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
> On 12/28/2009 01:56 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> >Actually, this is a case where the license on the ebuild is wrong, not
> >the license group. The kernel ebuilds should have GPL-2 and something
> >else, and by definition should not pass @FSF-APPROVED alone.
> Is this appropriate?  The kernel sources indicate that they are
> licensed under GPLv2, and they make no mention of other licenses for
> any component of the sources.
You're wrong there. The kernel does contain additional licenses, and
EXPLICITLY mentions them. Go and read 'firmware/WHENCE'.

The licenses listed therein range from use-permitted only
no-modification, to GPL-compliant and BSD-like.

> For that matter, for all we know kdelibs contains 10 lines of code
> from Jack Smith, who didn't agree to the LGPL and those 10 lines are
> under the Jack Smith Distribution License.  However, it would be
> best if Jack Smith were to take this up with the KDE team and not
> with every distro that uses KDE.
I'm not concerned with a case such as the above. "Jack Smith" needs to
take it up with KDE.

> If Gentoo starts second-guessing the licenses on packages, do we
> then become liable if we fail to do this for a package?
There is no second-guessing. What I am concerned with is that Gentoo's
statement of licensing does not accurately reflect what licenses are on
the package.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Richard Freeman]

On 12/28/2009 05:53 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> You're wrong there. The kernel does contain additional licenses, and
> EXPLICITLY mentions them. Go and read 'firmware/WHENCE'.
>
> The licenses listed therein range from use-permitted only
> no-modification, to GPL-compliant and BSD-like.
>

I stand corrected.  Somebody should tell Linus that his readme/copying 
is a bit misleading.  They really shouldn't bury licenses in subdirectories.

> There is no second-guessing. What I am concerned with is that Gentoo's
> statement of licensing does not accurately reflect what licenses are on
> the package.
>

Agreed - I think the key is for the package maintainer to ensure the 
license is accurate, and if anybody notices a problem just file a bug. 
I think the kernel is a bit of an oddball since the sources are so large 
- most packages are much smaller and have a single license, and the 
maintainer will probably be familiar enough to sort it out.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Vincent Launchbury]

Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Unless people dedicate time and effort, ACCEPT_LICENSE is useless.

Well, I think an incomplete tool is better than no tool at all. Even
though it's far from perfect, I still found it very useful to create a
free system. I'm certainly interested in helping to improve it.

> I'd say this is probably better suited for gentoo-project, but it's
> probably ok to start here, to gauge interest :)

Thanks, I'll subscribe to gentoo-project also.


Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> File bugs mate. Licensing is not exactly clear to all users or devs.  As 
> can be seen here[1] for dos2unix. It sounds like you care in this area, 
> so get involved.

That looks like a great starting point, thanks. The bug you mentioned
has been fixed already!


Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> The COPYRIGHT file in dos2unix is actually a 2-clause BSD license. I've
> updated the ebuild suitably.

Thanks, much appreciated.

> File a bug with some ebuilds.

It looks like somebody already has. See
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=266157. I tested the latest
ebuild, and it worked fine (see comment #59.) What would have to be done
to get it in the main tree?

> A profile is not the answer here.
> An optional DEP block || ( media-fonts/corefonts ... ) where the other
> item does resolve using ACCEPT_LICENSES is what should be used.

I'll have to read through the devmanual, thanks for the pointer.

> In your case, I propose that we add one or more stacked groups, with an
> initial content as such...

I'll start working on expanding LIBRE-FREE-1 then. I assume a bug report
would be the correct place to suggest this when I've made a decent
start?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Peter Volkov]

В Пнд, 28/12/2009 в 18:41 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan пишет:
> I think we can simply follow debian and fedora's lead on this. They
> have the lawyers, and

Well, it's possible but not that simple. To do this it's not enough to
compare packages, but files and patches should be compared as well (and
reasons why files were dropped investigated)  E.g. debian dropped rfc
files from the packages because license is not free:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=393400 while we'll have
to update our LICENSE. So, it's possible but not that easy as just
follow debian or fedora.

-- 
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Peter Volkov]

В Втр, 29/12/2009 в 00:24 -0500, Vincent Launchbury пишет:
> > File a bug with some ebuilds.
> 
> It looks like somebody already has. See
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=266157. I tested the latest
> ebuild, and it worked fine (see comment #59.) What would have to be
> done to get it in the main tree?

Without further investigation it looks like ebuild is not a best
approach: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=266157#c60

-- 
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:02:14PM +0300, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Втр, 29/12/2009 в 00:24 -0500, Vincent Launchbury пишет:
> > > File a bug with some ebuilds.
> > 
> > It looks like somebody already has. See
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=266157. I tested the latest
> > ebuild, and it worked fine (see comment #59.) What would have to be
> > done to get it in the main tree?
> 
> Without further investigation it looks like ebuild is not a best
> approach: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=266157#c60
Can we have USE-deps inside the LICENSE block then?

LICENSE="GPL-2 BSD BSD-2 BSD-4 ... !libre-free? ( other-blob-licenses )"

And test with:
ACCEPT_LICENSES="-* @FSF-APPROVED"
To see that the package is selected.

P.S.
Those scripts very over-zealous. They remove even firmware marked explicitly
with GPL-2/BSD-2 licenses and having source available.

The other advantage for the libre-free crowd is not even downloading tarballs
that contain "tainted" materials in their eyes.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 136 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 06:32:20PM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Can we have USE-deps inside the LICENSE block then?

Yes.

~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:36:34AM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
> 1) Not all of the licenses are completely accurate. For example, the
> Linux kernels are listed as soley GPL-2, yet they contain blobs of
> non-free firmware.

The fact that some people claim that the firmware blobs somehow violate
the GPLv2 license of the kernel is a claim, not a fact, so please do not
state it as such.  Also note that the majority of these firmware blobs
are now removed from the kernel, and are in a separate patckage, so this
might be totally irrelevant at this point in time.

Also note that the FSF has nothing to do with the Linux kernel project
or developers, so their statements have nothing to pertain to it and the
kernel's "license purity".

So please don't state that the Linux kernel is not properly listed as
the GPLv2, because it is.

thanks,

greg "I made the kernel not-free according to debian-legal in 1999" k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 08:16:22PM -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
> On 12/28/2009 05:53 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> You're wrong there. The kernel does contain additional licenses, and
>> EXPLICITLY mentions them. Go and read 'firmware/WHENCE'.
>>
>> The licenses listed therein range from use-permitted only
>> no-modification, to GPL-compliant and BSD-like.
>>
>
> I stand corrected.  Somebody should tell Linus that his readme/copying is a 
> bit misleading.  They really shouldn't bury licenses in subdirectories.

No, the readme/copying is correct, it covers all of the code that runs
on the processor as one body of work.  Firmware blobs are different in
that they do not run in the same processor, and can be of a different
license.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Vincent Launchbury]

Greg KH wrote:
> The fact that some people claim that the firmware blobs somehow violate
> the GPLv2 license of the kernel is a claim, not a fact, so please do not
> state it as such.  

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your reply.

I think you misunderstood my point though. I wasn't saying that the
firmware violates the GPL, I have no idea whether it does or not. I was
saying that some of the firmware is non-free software, and therefore the
license should include more than just GPL-2. This especially effects
people using ACCEPT_LICENSE to maintain a free system.

> Also note that the majority of these firmware blobs are now removed
> from the kernel, and are in a separate patckage, so this might be
> totally irrelevant at this point in time.

This may be true, but the packages in the main tree still contain
non-free firmware. If this is fixed in a later release, then GPL-2 would
be fine for those.

> So please don't state that the Linux kernel is not properly listed as
> the GPLv2, because it is.

In linux-2.6.31 for example, here are some excerpts from
firmware/WHENCE:

Regarding the keyspan USB driver:
	This firmware may not be modified and may only be used with
	Keyspan hardware.

and the emi26 driver:
	This firmware may not be modified and may only be used with the
	Emagic EMI 2|6 Audio Interface.

I'm not sure if this git repo is part of a separate package or not, but
it seems the same terms are present:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/linux-firmware.git;a=blob;f=WHENCE;h=83d245bee1ec44cbd5c0e1a53a3989c57f675c91;hb=f20b0674534a444ae74239843cac19f72c64912b

Which is why I think the license should be amended. If I'm mistaken,
please do correct me, but based on my above notes, I believe it should
be updated.

Thanks,
Vincent.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Richard Freeman]

On 12/29/2009 07:52 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> No, the readme/copying is correct, it covers all of the code that runs
> on the processor as one body of work.  Firmware blobs are different in
> that they do not run in the same processor, and can be of a different
> license.
>

Yes, but they don't cover everything in the tarball.  If I want to copy 
the tarball, then I need to comply with the distribution license of the 
tarball.  That license isn't clearly advertised.  It is a mix of a 
number of licenses from GPL v2 to allowed-to-copy-without-modifications.

The processor that the software runs on is fairly irrelevant.

In any case, I'm sure the kernel team will update the ebuild license 
string appropriately - this is more of a debate for the LKML.  I just 
don't think that they've done a good job with it.  Others are welcome to 
hold differing opinions.  :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 09:42:06PM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > The fact that some people claim that the firmware blobs somehow violate
> > the GPLv2 license of the kernel is a claim, not a fact, so please do not
> > state it as such.  
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Thanks for your reply.
> 
> I think you misunderstood my point though. I wasn't saying that the
> firmware violates the GPL, I have no idea whether it does or not. I was
> saying that some of the firmware is non-free software, and therefore the
> license should include more than just GPL-2. This especially effects
> people using ACCEPT_LICENSE to maintain a free system.

Heh, no, it does not, unless your BIOS, and your keyboard firmware, and
your mouse firmware are all under a "free" license.  The only thing
close to this type of machine is the OLPC, and even then, I don't think
all the microcode for the box was ever released.

So it's a pointless effort.

Hint, these firmware blobs do not run on your processor, so they have
nothing to do with the license of your "system".

> > Also note that the majority of these firmware blobs are now removed
> > from the kernel, and are in a separate patckage, so this might be
> > totally irrelevant at this point in time.
> 
> This may be true, but the packages in the main tree still contain
> non-free firmware. If this is fixed in a later release, then GPL-2 would
> be fine for those.

Again, no, the GPLv2 covers the license of all of the code you run in
the kernel package.

> > So please don't state that the Linux kernel is not properly listed as
> > the GPLv2, because it is.
> 
> In linux-2.6.31 for example, here are some excerpts from
> firmware/WHENCE:
> 
> Regarding the keyspan USB driver:
> 	This firmware may not be modified and may only be used with
> 	Keyspan hardware.
> 
> and the emi26 driver:
> 	This firmware may not be modified and may only be used with the
> 	Emagic EMI 2|6 Audio Interface.

And again, you do not run those firmware images on your processor, so
the point is moot.

And note, _I_ placed those images in the kernel image, after consulting
lawyers about this issue, so it's not like I don't know what I am
talking about here.

> I'm not sure if this git repo is part of a separate package or not, but
> it seems the same terms are present:
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/linux-firmware.git;a=blob;f=WHENCE;h=83d245bee1ec44cbd5c0e1a53a3989c57f675c91;hb=f20b0674534a444ae74239843cac19f72c64912b
> 
> Which is why I think the license should be amended. If I'm mistaken,
> please do correct me, but based on my above notes, I believe it should
> be updated.

Please see above why this is all just fine.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 06:43:47AM -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
> On 12/29/2009 07:52 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> No, the readme/copying is correct, it covers all of the code that runs
>> on the processor as one body of work.  Firmware blobs are different in
>> that they do not run in the same processor, and can be of a different
>> license.
>>
>
> Yes, but they don't cover everything in the tarball.  If I want to copy the 
> tarball, then I need to comply with the distribution license of the 
> tarball.  That license isn't clearly advertised.  It is a mix of a number 
> of licenses from GPL v2 to allowed-to-copy-without-modifications.

No, you can copy that tarball just fine, and when you _distribute_ it,
the GPLv2 applies to it.

> The processor that the software runs on is fairly irrelevant.

Not true at all, why would you think that?  Since when does a license
cross a processor boundry?

> In any case, I'm sure the kernel team will update the ebuild license string 
> appropriately - this is more of a debate for the LKML.  I just don't think 
> that they've done a good job with it.  Others are welcome to hold differing 
> opinions.  :)

You don't think the gentoo kernel team (of which I think I'm the
longest-term member), or the Linux kernel developers (of which I am the
actual person who put those images in the kernel back in the late
1990's after consulting many lawers, and Linus, on the issue) are doing
a good job with this?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Harald van Dijk]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 08:51:18PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 06:43:47AM -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
> > On 12/29/2009 07:52 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >> No, the readme/copying is correct, it covers all of the code that runs
> >> on the processor as one body of work.  Firmware blobs are different in
> >> that they do not run in the same processor, and can be of a different
> >> license.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, but they don't cover everything in the tarball.  If I want to copy the 
> > tarball, then I need to comply with the distribution license of the 
> > tarball.  That license isn't clearly advertised.  It is a mix of a number 
> > of licenses from GPL v2 to allowed-to-copy-without-modifications.
> 
> No, you can copy that tarball just fine, and when you _distribute_ it,
> the GPLv2 applies to it.

Then I can distribute modified versions of the tarball, with altered
firmware, in direct violation of the license granted for that firmware,
just because it's allowed by the GPL? Seriously, you're saying the
license of the firmware doesn't matter.

> > The processor that the software runs on is fairly irrelevant.
> 
> Not true at all, why would you think that?  Since when does a license
> cross a processor boundry?

When I copy the Linux kernel sources, all files are copied by a single
processor. This isn't about running the kernel.

> > In any case, I'm sure the kernel team will update the ebuild license string 
> > appropriately - this is more of a debate for the LKML.  I just don't think 
> > that they've done a good job with it.  Others are welcome to hold differing 
> > opinions.  :)
> 
> You don't think the gentoo kernel team (of which I think I'm the
> longest-term member), or the Linux kernel developers (of which I am the
> actual person who put those images in the kernel back in the late
> 1990's after consulting many lawers, and Linus, on the issue) are doing
> a good job with this?

Please stop avoiding the issue. No one is saying the firmware is in
conflict with the GPL, or that distribution of the kernel is illegal.
The way it's distributed is fine. It's just not reflected properly in
Gentoo.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Richard Freeman]

On 12/30/2009 11:48 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Heh, no, it does not, unless your BIOS, and your keyboard firmware, and
> your mouse firmware are all under a "free" license.  The only thing
> close to this type of machine is the OLPC, and even then, I don't think
> all the microcode for the box was ever released.
>
> So it's a pointless effort.

Actually, you describe the futility of the effort, not the pointlessness 
of the effort.  The fact that an effort is difficult or even futile does 
not make it pointless.  Some might disagree about it being impossible as 
well (there are open-source BIOS implementations, for example).

I'm sure the people who have such philosophies try to run free software 
anytime that it is possible.  They might not be able to run free 
software on their microwave, but if one came out with an open-source 
firmware they'd probably try to buy it.  I don't see this as being 
inconsistent, just practical.  The fact that they can't buy an 
open-source toaster or mouse doesn't mean that they can't use an 
open-source kernel.

>
> Hint, these firmware blobs do not run on your processor, so they have
> nothing to do with the license of your "system".

I'm not really sure where you're coming up with this argument.  The 
purpose of a license is to ALLOW you to do something you otherwise 
wouldn't be allowed to do.  Licenses don't actually take away rights, 
they grant them.  Laws do take away rights.  There is a law that says 
that if I write a program and give it to you, you can't copy it and give 
it to somebody else.  However, if I give you a license to copy the file 
under some conditions, then you can copy it legally if you follow those 
conditions.  Nowhere in copyright law is the word "processor" found or 
implied - the technology used to copy is also irrelevant except to the 
degree that it impacts fair use.

When you run software you aren't distributing it.  The concept of a 
use-license is a bit blurry - some people think that you don't need a 
license to use software, and other people think you do.  I don't believe 
that court rulings are as uniform on the topic of use as they are on the 
concept of copying.  In any case, the GPL v2 does not in any way attempt 
to restrict or grant the rights to use software - only to distribute it. 
  GPL v3 is a bit murkier in this regard, but irrelevant to a discussion 
on the kernel.

>
> Again, no, the GPLv2 covers the license of all of the code you run in
> the kernel package.

The concern isn't about RUNNING the software - it is about DISTRIBUTING 
the software.

> And again, you do not run those firmware images on your processor, so
> the point is moot.

Sure you do - you run them on your sound card processor, or your video 
capture card processor, or whatever.  However, the concern isn't running 
the software, it is redistributing it.

>
> And note, _I_ placed those images in the kernel image, after consulting
> lawyers about this issue, so it's not like I don't know what I am
> talking about here.

Did they say that the GPLv2 applied to the entire tarball containing the 
firmware?  Or did they simply state that building/running kernels using 
the tarball was legal?

Nobody is saying that the presence of the proprietary bits violates the 
GPL (v1, v2, OR v3).  You're not doing anything illegal.

However, the tarball is not licensed under the GPLv2.  I can't modify 
that tarball at will, for example, and redistribute it.  If I modify 10 
bytes in the middle of one of those firmware blobs, reassemble the 
tarball, and post that on my website, I can be sued by the maker of that 
firmware blob.  I haven't violated the GPL in doing any of that - the 
problem is that the firmware blob isn't licensed under the GPL.

The license to redistribute the gentoo-sources tarball is NOT GPLv2 - it 
is GPLv2 for 98% of it, and a mix of other licenses for the rest.  I 
don't own a keyspan usb serial device, but that doesn't mean I can 
modify the usa28.fw file and put it in a kernel tarball on my website, 
as the license for that file SPECIFICALLY states that I'm not allowed to 
do this and it is copyrighted.  Doing this doesn't violate the GPL, but 
the GPL doesn't apply to this file.

The point of this thread is that the gentoo-sources package is 
mislabeled as GPLv2 when the entire package is not licensed under GPL 
v2.  Nobody is saying that it is illegal to distribute gentoo-sources, 
only that it cannot be entirely distributed solely under GPLv2.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Vincent Launchbury]

Greg KH wrote:
> And note, _I_ placed those images in the kernel image, after consulting
> lawyers about this issue, so it's not like I don't know what I am
> talking about here.

I'm not questioning whether it's legal to distribute non-free firmware
alongside the GPL. I'm merely saying that the firmware _is_ non-free,
which should be reflected by the ebuild licenses.

> So it's a pointless effort.

To you maybe, but it's important to some. Note that updating the
licenses would only affect those with strict ACCEPT_LICENSE settings
anyway. I don't understand why you'd oppose the change.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 11:55:49PM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > And note, _I_ placed those images in the kernel image, after consulting
> > lawyers about this issue, so it's not like I don't know what I am
> > talking about here.
> 
> I'm not questioning whether it's legal to distribute non-free firmware
> alongside the GPL. I'm merely saying that the firmware _is_ non-free,
> which should be reflected by the ebuild licenses.

So you are saying that the license for the kernel should show the
license for all of the different firmware files as well?  That would get
pretty unusable, and keep the kernel from being able to be installed on
anyone's machine that didn't want such licenses, right?

Also note that the license of the firmware files do not matter to almost
everyone using the kernel, as almost no one uses those files anymore,
the ones in the linux-firmware package should be used instead.

So as we are a source-based distro, if you object to those firmware
licenses, just don't build them in your kernel builds.  But to expect to
list all of them as the license for the whole kernel package, that's not
a workable solution as far as I can see.

> > So it's a pointless effort.
> 
> To you maybe, but it's important to some. Note that updating the
> licenses would only affect those with strict ACCEPT_LICENSE settings
> anyway. I don't understand why you'd oppose the change.

So you want anyone with such strict settings to not be able to install
the kernel package at all?  If so, what kernel do you want them to be
able to use?  :)

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Harald van Dijk]

On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 10:57:01AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 11:55:49PM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
> > Greg KH wrote:
> > > And note, _I_ placed those images in the kernel image, after consulting
> > > lawyers about this issue, so it's not like I don't know what I am
> > > talking about here.
> > 
> > I'm not questioning whether it's legal to distribute non-free firmware
> > alongside the GPL. I'm merely saying that the firmware _is_ non-free,
> > which should be reflected by the ebuild licenses.
> 
> So you are saying that the license for the kernel should show the
> license for all of the different firmware files as well?

If all the different firmware files get installed, then yes.

> That would get
> pretty unusable, and keep the kernel from being able to be installed on
> anyone's machine that didn't want such licenses, right?
> 
> Also note that the license of the firmware files do not matter to almost
> everyone using the kernel, as almost no one uses those files anymore,
> the ones in the linux-firmware package should be used instead.

Right, which is why at the same time it would be useful to have an
option to not install those files. There's no problem with USE
conditionals in LICENSE; LICENSE="GPL-2 firmware? ( freedist )" or
expanded further would be fine, and simply nuke those files on install
with USE="-firmware".

> So as we are a source-based distro, if you object to those firmware
> licenses, just don't build them in your kernel builds.  But to expect to
> list all of them as the license for the whole kernel package, that's not
> a workable solution as far as I can see.

The kernel sources are unusual in that they install the sources, and the
user is responsible for configuration and compilation. For anything
built from an ebuild, the license of unused parts of the source code
shouldn't matter, but here all of the source files of the kernel get
installed.

> > > So it's a pointless effort.
> > 
> > To you maybe, but it's important to some. Note that updating the
> > licenses would only affect those with strict ACCEPT_LICENSE settings
> > anyway. I don't understand why you'd oppose the change.
> 
> So you want anyone with such strict settings to not be able to install
> the kernel package at all?  If so, what kernel do you want them to be
> able to use?  :)

The GPL-2 licensed parts of all the kernel packages -- so probably
everything that matters -- could be installed with
ACCEPT_LICENSE="GPL-2" with my above suggestion.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Vincent Launchbury]

Harald van D3k wrote:
> Right, which is why at the same time it would be useful to have an
> option to not install those files. There's no problem with USE
> conditionals in LICENSE; LICENSE="GPL-2 firmware? ( freedist )" or
> expanded further would be fine, and simply nuke those files on install
> with USE="-firmware".

Nick White is already working on modifying the kernel-2 eclass so that
it's possible to remove such files, using the deblobbing scripts from
the FSF-LA. See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=266157.

Your license suggestion would be a perfect accompaniment.

> The GPL-2 licensed parts of all the kernel packages -- so probably
> everything that matters -- could be installed with
> ACCEPT_LICENSE="GPL-2" with my above suggestion.

Yes, and using just 'freedist' as you suggested, should remove all the
hassle of keeping the list up-to-date.


Greg KH wrote:
> Also note that the license of the firmware files do not matter to
> almost everyone using the kernel, as almost no one uses those files
> anymore, the ones in the linux-firmware package should be used
> instead.

The key word here is 'almost'. For example, I happened to be using one
or two of them, before I found out they were non-free. I was
oblivious to it initially because it wasn't reflected in the license.

All I'm asking for is that users who care about this will be shown an
accurate license, so that they can be as free as possible, if they
choose that path. We obviously have different beliefs on the issue, but
isn't it better to accommodate both--aren't we aiming for essentially
the same goals anyway? :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Richard Freeman]

On 01/07/2010 01:19 AM, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
> All I'm asking for is that users who care about this will be shown an
> accurate license,

I think that this really sums this whole thing up.  Can you run a 
computer with ONLY FOSS on it (firmware to ROMs to hard drive 
controlers) - probably not, but maybe.  I think that is really a 
separate matter.

I think this really just boils down to this:  If we have a piece of 
metadata on a package it should be accurate.  The license should reflect 
the license of whatever ends up on a user's hard drive.  Maybe knowing 
the license isn't that important - in that case maybe we shouldn't track 
licenses at all.  However, if we're going to track the license, then it 
should be completely accurate (or at least we should aim for that even 
if Gentoo metadata can never be perfect).  That's why I also support 
having GPL2 vs GPL2+ / etc in the license field.  Sure, it won't be 
exactly right for a while, but it is worth shooting for.

Ditto for other metadata - homepages should be official, maintainers 
should be active, and all that.  QA will always have work to do as this 
will never be 100% right for everything in the tree, but there is value 
in being accurate anytime we can be.

By all means the default install should have an ACCEPT_LICENSE that is 
both legal and fully functional - if people want to trim it down that is 
up to them.  Maybe somebody wants to use Gentoo to build an appliance 
and they want to go pure non-copyleft - that's a major chore but we 
could still give them a great head-start on identifying where the issues 
with that are and at least getting them 80% of a functional system.

I think this whole thread really boils down to - make the license 
accurate.  What users do with it is up to them, and we don't need to 
support non-standard configurations just because we make them possible.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 01:19:24AM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > Also note that the license of the firmware files do not matter to
> > almost everyone using the kernel, as almost no one uses those files
> > anymore, the ones in the linux-firmware package should be used
> > instead.
> 
> The key word here is 'almost'. For example, I happened to be using one
> or two of them, before I found out they were non-free. I was
> oblivious to it initially because it wasn't reflected in the license.

So how did this change anything?  Did you change hardware platforms to
ones with opensource firmware files?  If so, what ones did you use
instead?  Is the firmware for them open source?

> All I'm asking for is that users who care about this will be shown an
> accurate license, so that they can be as free as possible, if they
> choose that path. We obviously have different beliefs on the issue, but
> isn't it better to accommodate both--aren't we aiming for essentially
> the same goals anyway? :)

No, I think you are trying to solve a non-problem.

Think through my question above please.  If the kernel loads a firmware
file that is not free, or if the device itself has a firmware in it that
you can not change so easily, has _nothing_ to do with the license of
the kernel, nor the "freeness" of the software you are running.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

[Richard Freeman]

On 01/08/2010 12:26 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> If the kernel loads a firmware
> file that is not free, or if the device itself has a firmware in it that
> you can not change so easily, has _nothing_ to do with the license of
> the kernel,
>

I don't think anybody is concerned about the license of "the kernel", 
but rather the license of sys-kernel/gentoo-sources.  Gentoo-sources 
contains "the kernel" as well as a bunch of other stuff (documentation, 
firmware, etc).  It can only have a single license if EVERYTHING 
installed by the package is usable under that single license.

The LICENSE in an ebuild pertains to the package - not just to the 
largest component or majority of the package.  Very few people install 
gentoo-sources mainly to read the docs or get a firmware blob, but they 
are still there, and the license should reflect this.