Remove non-free packages from Linaro hwpacks

[Vinod Krishnamoni]

While inspecting the VE hwpack from http://releases.linaro.org/12.04/ubuntu/precise-images/alip/hwpack_linaro-vexpress_20120424-1_armhf_supported.tar.gz we came across the linux-firmware package that has the following licensing terms:

1. Intela software (maintained by the <email address hidden>) – the licence states under Intel’s copyright you are granted a licence to copy and distribute the software to your end-users, but under a licence agreement with terms at least as restrictive as those contained in Intel’s final, single user licence agreement. The single user licence agreement states the software is licensed for use only in conjunction with Intel component products. Use of the software in conjunction with non-Intel component products is not licensed hereunder.
2. Adaptec, Inc licence states that the software contains trade secrets and in order to protect them you may not: (1) distribute copies of the software in any manner, including, but not limited to, distribution through web site posting.

This effectively puts restrictions on/prevents redistribution, so the package needs to be removed from the hwpacks.

[Vinod Krishnamoni (vinod-krishnamoni)]

Please can you confim this will be removed for the 12.05 release?( at least for VE. I was told Panda uses some blobs from this package, so you may need to check on a platform by platform basis)

[Fathi Boudra (fboudra)]

On 14 May 2012 17:25, Vinod Krishnamoni <email address hidden> wrote:
> Please can you confim this will be removed for the 12.05 release?( at
> least for VE. I was told Panda uses some blobs from this package, so you
> may need to check on a platform by platform basis)

yes, this bug will be fixed for 12.05 release as targeted.

[Fathi Boudra (fboudra)]

linux-firmware (1.80~linaro1) precise; urgency=low

  * Update debian/copyright and add debian/prune-nonfree to remove non-free
    firmware preventing redistribution (LP: #997586):
    1. Intel software – the licence states under Intel’s copyright you are
    granted a licence to copy and distribute the software to your end-users,
    but under a licence agreement with terms at least as restrictive as those
    contained in Intel’s final, single user licence agreement. The single user
    licence agreement states the software is licensed for use only in
    conjunction with Intel component products. Use of the software in
    conjunction with non-Intel component products is not licensed hereunder.
    2. Adaptec, Inc licence states that the software contains trade secrets and
    in order to protect them you may not: (1) distribute copies of the software
    in any manner, including, but not limited to, distribution through web site
    posting.

[Ricardo Salveti (rsalveti)]

Fathi, I'd prefer if we could remove the firmwares from the src package as well, as we could face these distribution issues again if we decide to copy/install the src package at the hwpack/rootfs level.

[Fathi Boudra (fboudra)]

On 21 May 2012 05:42, Ricardo Salveti wrote:
> Fathi, I'd prefer if we could remove the firmwares from the src package
> as well, as we could face these distribution issues again if we decide
> to copy/install the src package at the hwpack/rootfs level.

While my fix is acceptable (Linaro doesn't redistribute the non-free
firmwares in the hwpacks), the change to get rid of the firrmwares in
the source package is in a gray area imo (IANAL) and coming from
Ubuntu.

This issue should be raised with Ubuntu, clarify redistribution and
get a common fix.
These firmwares are non-free and a user must agree to the terms of the
license before they are installed.

[Anmar Oueja (anmar)]

It is important that we fix the source packages. I pinged Ricardo on e-mail about this.

[Ricardo Salveti (rsalveti)]

I removed from the source at least on our side, as one of our goals is to create a snapshot of the PPA together with every release, so the binary and source packages and always be available.

If we have the non-free firmwares at the source package, we'd probably get in trouble if we decide to replicate it inside ARM, for example.

[Fathi Boudra (fboudra)]

> I removed from the source at least on our side, as one of our goals is
> to create a snapshot of the PPA together with every release, so the
> binary and source packages and always be available.
>
> If we have the non-free firmwares at the source package, we'd probably
> get in trouble if we decide to replicate it inside ARM, for example.

No, we won't. Users have to accept the SLA if they won't to
redistribute.Nothing less, nothing more.
While Anmar said it's important, it's just being extra cautious.

[Vinod Krishnamoni (vinod-krishnamoni)]

IANAL, but the Adaptec license clearly states you "may not distribute the software in any manner including, but not limited to, distribution through web site posting.". In my interpretation, "the software" includes the sources (not just the binaries) and hosting packages which can be apt-get installed by 3rd parties implies redistribution (similar to website posting).