On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Loïc Minier wrote: > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Mon, Oct 18, 2004: > > This argument has been made before, and the clear consensus is > > that firmware is software; this is even clearer than the situation > > over documents and other "data", which were also decided (on a > > project-wide basis) to be software. > > I'm interested, would you please provide some pointers on those > discussions?
No sourcecode bits: http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/thread/20021106.222149.24f92b22.en.html In the context of DSP Binaries: http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/thread/20030922.064726.2833dd35.en.html And the incredibly gargantuan keep non-free proposal thread: http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/thread/20040129.052350.5b5e7192.en.html And finally: http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 and http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 > > My question to you is this: does the author of the firmware edit the > > binary directly, or do they have some other format? If the latter, it > > shouldn't be in Debian main, and if it is GPLed, we can't legally > > distribute it at all. > > Once again, I think Debian won't be building or running the program > that is hidden in the binary blob. I don't see how that relates to > the program included in Debian. DFSG §2: The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. > No I'm saying that if the modem would work without the need to send > a firmware first, or if you could send a firmware if you wish but > that is not mandatory, then nobody would complain about the abscence > of the sources of a program that runs on the modem. We would complain, because such a binary would violate DFSG 2. In a case like this, you can simply not distribute the binary firmware if you wish to distribute everything in main. > I am comparing the usefulness of the source code of firmware: > suddenly, when the firmware has not a permanent storage on the > device, its source needs to be GPL too! The question is, is (GPLed code + firmware) a derived work of the GPLed code, and not a mere aggregation. If it is a derived work, then the firmware must be GPL compatible. > Most recent computers have flashable BIOSes, or flashable VGA card > BIOSes, and nobody went asking for the source of these programs. > Nobody is interested in modifying the source of such programs, and > if they were, _this_ would be a project on its own. You're conflating things without source on their own with things without source that are part of a worked derived from a GPLed work. They are two totally separate things. [Of course, neither of them is distributable in main anyway.] Don Armstrong -- It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong -- Chris Torek http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
