"ANY rule which reduces your rights is unacceptable," explained Theo de Raadt [interview] in a brief discussion on the OpenBSD -misc mailing list, "especially when the full consequences of such a set of rules may be unclear -- which it always is." The comment was in response to a query about why Intel's firmware was considered non-free. Theo went on to explain:
"Normal free software has no 'contract law' issues, because it is simply given away under 'copyright law with almost all author's rights revoked'. Contract law works differently, because it is based more on the principle of 'you got something, now you have to give something back'. The minute you see a URL like that explaining things in such a way, you should realize that the addition of 'rules' means you are in a different legal system.
"Copyright has no way to apply such rules, therefore [the Intel firmware] is not free."
From: Pieter Verberne [email blocked] To: misc Subject: Intel wifi firmware license Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:27:02 +0200 Hi, it must be because of my poor English but I don't understand why Intel's firmware is NNF (non-free firmware). The firmware is GPL licensed. I don't exactly know what a 'contractual obligation' (man ipw(4)) is in this context (maybe some dutch-man can explain that to me?). Intel's website (http://support.intel.com/support/wireless/wlan/sb/cs-016675.htm) says that the end user should be noticed that the software may be covered by a variety of licenses. But that souldn't make software non- free? So, what is that about the 'contractual obligation'? Pieter Verberne
From: Theo de Raadt [email blocked] Subject: Re: Intel wifi firmware license Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 06:40:37 -0600 > it must be because of my poor English but I don't understand why Intel's > firmware is NNF (non-free firmware). The firmware is GPL licensed. No it is not. > I > don't exactly know what a 'contractual obligation' (man ipw(4)) is in > this context (maybe some dutch-man can explain that to me?). Rules you did not have to follow beforehands. > Intel's > website > (http://support.intel.com/support/wireless/wlan/sb/cs-016675.htm) > says that the end user should be noticed that the software may be > covered by a variety of licenses. Isn't that a new rule you did not have to follow before? > But that souldn't make software non- > free? That most positively IS a new rule you did not have to follow before, so it IS a reduction in your freedom. > So, what is that about the 'contractual obligation'? ANY rule which reduces your rights is unacceptable, especially when the full consequences of such a set of rules may be unclear -- which it always is. Normal free software has no 'contract law' issues, because it is simply given away under "copyright law with almost all author's rights revoked". Contract law works differently, because it is based more on the principle of "you got something, now you have to give something back". The minute you see a URL like that explaining things in such a way, you should realize that the addition of 'rules' means you are in a different legal system. Copyright has no way to apply such rules, therefore it is not free. And none of this is unobvious; it's been discussed many times in other places. Just because you don't consider what you read on that site to be a problem, does not mean that others are ok with it. We stand up for everyone, not just one guy.
Covered By Various Licenses
I'm not sure the logic follows that "covered by a variety of licenses" reduces your rights. Licenses *grant* rights. Multiple licenses potentially grant more rights than any one of them. Eg. a lot of code is in the linux kernel and is thereby distributed under the GPLv2, but also available under the BSD license, which gives certain freedoms to the recipients (at the expense of those they pass it on to, of course) thus the multiple licenses actually give you more freedoms (including the freedom to deny others' freedoms)
On the other hand, if what is meant by "covered by a variety of licenses" is something more like "you need to accept *all* the licenses, with their conditions, to receive permission to use this software" then that's a different thing. I.e. the multiple licenses each cover a certain portion of the work, and the combined work is therefore only licensed if *all* the licenses are valid for the user.
Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny
As far as I can see the
As far as I can see the issue is not the multiple licences, but rather the rule that you must notify the end user of them.
I guess they would consider
I guess they would consider any license with the terms "You may not remove these license terms" to be non-free... pretty silly reasoning.
Hmmm....
By Theo's argument, how do you get beyond "Protected by copyright, so go to the copyright holder for your own copy" unless you go all the way to "public domain"? Where does the OpenBSD license fit in this?
So is Theo saying the restriction requiring me to keep a copyright notice in the code a contract, and therefore non-free?
The INTEL Firmware is NOT
The INTEL Firmware is NOT free because it can`t be freely distributed by ANYBODY.
And THIS is a restriction of freedom.
legal issues
the general audience of most contracts either don't read them, or have no idea what the contents even imply.