From alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz  Tue Mar  9 10:27:21 1999
Received: from neutrino.kek.jp (root@neutrino.kek.jp [130.87.218.139])
	by marvin.jcu.cz (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA15151
	for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 10:27:04 +0100
Received: from lbscissors.kek.jp (root@lbscissors.kek.jp [130.87.218.173]) by neutrino.kek.jp (8.8.8+2.7Wbeta7/3.4W3) with ESMTP id SAA01731 for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 18:26:57 +0900
Received: from lbscissors.kek.jp (really [127.0.0.1]) by neutrino.kek.jp
	via in.smtpd with esmtp (ident sharkey using rfc1413)
	id <m10KImv-000sLNC@lbscissors.kek.jp> (Debian Smail3.2.0.102)
	for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 18:26:57 +0900 (JST) 
Message-Id: <m10KImv-000sLNC@lbscissors.kek.jp>
To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
From: sharkey@ale.physics.sunysb.edu
Subject: Re: ALSA Soundcard Vendor Information 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Mar 1999 20:25:26 +0100."
             <19990308202526.H391@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 18:26:57 +0900
Reply-To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
Sender: alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz
Precedence: list

> > That's true.  However, if the firmware is patched to resolve some
> > incompatibility, does that make it a derived work?
> 
> Definitely yes. How could it be something else?

*Yes*???  I don't understand your logic.

My understanding of a "derived work" is something that takes the code of
of an "original work" and modifies it to create a new work or incorporates
into another existing work.

If I use certain versions of Netscape with certain versions of bash, there's
an error in the way Netscape starts certain external applications.  Netscape
was patched to avoid this problem in the 4.5 release.  Is Netscape 4.5 a
derived work of bash?

If it is, it's illegal, since Netscape is not a GPL'd product.  I just don't
see how you can say that one product which is changed to be compatible
with another is a derived work of the other product.

> And, I have yet to see a proprietary license which allows patching binaries
> and distributing/copying the result. Most copyright licenses explicitely
> forbid ANY modification, disassembling etc. The usual stuff.

Yes, that is a problem, but it's really a separate issue.  We were originally
only talking about the problem of not having source.

> > ALSA drivers also don't work without hardware.  Is the hardware also included
> > in the work?
> 
> No, because the copyright only applies to software. (yeah, I know you didn't
> mean it serious :)

But what is hardware and what is software?  Where do you draw the line?

> Yes. My suggestion is the following:
> 
> Consider firmware to be free enough to be distributed along Alsa, if the
> following conditions are met.
>
> * The firmware can be copied and distributed unmodified without restriction
> (that means, everybody must be able to copy it ((not only card holders)),
> and one may take a fee for it - which is important for Linux distributions,
> which are often selled for money). [if it is non-commmercial only, it should
> be distributed from the ftp site, but not in Alsa tar file, as this will make
> life unhappy for a lot of ftp-archive snapshot makers etc]

This is clearly necessary for redistribution.

> * The firmware may be disassembled.
> * The firmware may be patched with a binary patch, thus forming a derived
>   work, which can be distributed under the very terms described here.

These two are not needed in all cases.  Consider the case where it's the
hardware manufacturer that writes the new firmware.  If they release a "Linux
certified" firmware release, it may still be useful to distribute it even
if they don't allow disassembly or modification.  I've seen many such sets of
new firmware which were made for a certain operating system that was released
in 1995; I don't think it's unreasonable for Linux to command enough power
to get such things in the near future. 

Eric


