Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It seems clear to me that the distinction here is whether we > > treat the firmware in question as software or hardware.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:32:22AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > The firmware that we are talking about is, in every case I've actually > investigated, a set of instructions that are carried out by something > that approximates a processor. How is this not equivilent to software? The social contract uses more words than "software". Put into the context you've expressed here: software which our system doesn't deal with as software is not a component of our system. Software which our system deals as software and which we depend on for some result is a component of our system. And, yes, I know you have expressed a desire to change how we approach this issue. -- Raul
