On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 04:52:13PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > The only thing is #2 above. The question is if someone must release > all it knows when it release open source software (according to DFSG) > or if you can release only enough to make something work. I can also > put it as if you want to make good software, when you release something > as open source? > > What I want to tell with this message is that we should stick to > what the license tell. The important thing is that we do not > build something binary that do not contain the code that can > produce that binary. > > If we consider this as a violation of the DFSG (because of #2 above), > then where do we draw the line between closed and open source?
Notice that in the GPL case, the definition of free software (to use the FSF/GNU terminology, which is more fiting here) is pretty clear about the what is source, namely "the prefered form of modification". > Must software be easy to understand, or should we consider all software > that have hardcoded values as closed source? > > Will all reverse engineered drivers with hardcoded values be considered > as closed source? Must you always release everything that you know > when you release somehting as open source? > Must we release the instructions on how to paint an image, how to > move the arm while painting if we release an image as open source? > > I think this is worth considering. Personally I think this bug can > be closed. But your thinking are giving us an excellent way out. We could simply take all those binary blobs that are in the kernel, and try to take a guess about the instruction set which they are designed for, and disasemble them, and provide the dissasembled version under the GPL, as well as a instructions to re-assemble them into the actual binary blob. If we were to achieve that, i would be more than happy to consider these blobs and their corresponding reverse-engineered asm codes as actual source. One may argue that in this case, the actual documentation of the registers may be more of a source for such binary blobs, but it would in any case be no worse than any other reverse-engineering effort out there. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
