Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 02:38:41AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <brong@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

#define Dell CFG_FAVOURITE_VENDOR

A Dell desktop machine is a piece of hardware. The manufacturer has the
source code (hypothetically) to the BIOS. The BIOS is required for the
machine to boot and run Linux.

Riddle me this (especially Alexandre, I'm just latching on to Ingo's
post because it has the right hook to grab) - are Dell required to give
out the source to the bios to enable people to have the same rights Dell
engineers do to modify the behaviour of the system?

What is the license for the bios? Does it say anything about 'no
further restrictions on the freedoms to modify and share the
software'?

It's a necessary part of the boot process, without which Linux could
not be started. Indeed, the Linux kernel interacts with it through a
(loosely, incompletely and frequently buggy) documented interface, much
like how binary modules interact with the linux kernel (even if they do
get loaded into the sacred ring0 execution space, ooh err)

What happens if you're debugging something you think is a bug in the
Linux kernel and then you run bang into some interactions that make you
think the bug might be in the BIOS instead. Oh unhappy day, you don't
have access to the source code to the BIOS so you can't check. Those
cretins at Dell (does a #define still work when it's 2 levels quoted?)
have denied your freedom to modify and debug the system they sold you
which is based _in_a_large_part_ on the GPL$mumble Linux kernel and
hence needs to be interoperable.

Regardless of your sophistry, it's a slipery slope by which Dell could
be forced to exert their corporate might back up the tree to the BIOS
vendor and get the right to release that BIOS source code to you or
stop distributing Linux on their machines.

Does it include any mechanisms to stop people from booting modified
versions of the Linux that ships with the machine?

Maybe, and either way, a future update could, and you couldn't undo it
unless the BIOS flash system lets you "downgrade" again.

Bron.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Relevant Pages

  • [ANNOUNCE] ACPI BIOS Guideline for Linux
    ... Linux is urgently missing and should get published. ... I mainly try to get feedback from OEMs and BIOS developers, ... ACPI BIOS checks whether Linux is running...). ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... A Dell desktop machine is a piece of hardware. ... source code to the BIOS. ... that the manufacturer has *must* be passed on to the end-user. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [SLE] Yast gets incorrect hard disk size during install
    ... >>format as well as partition the HD. ... Linux wants the BIOS to be in control of the hardware but what almost ... everybody who installs M$ does is answer YES to the question in the BIOS ... the first 256 bytes of the partition. ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: basic installation problem
    ... This is a BIOS setup issue, and there's nothing in Linux that affects ... If you have Dell systems, usually holding down the key gets ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Found, a new rootkit
    ... to the serial port. ... I fail the see the difference between the Linux driver for a serial ... The drivers themselves simply make BIOS calls. ...
    (Fedora)