Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If it's the latter, I maintain that this is precisely the subject matter of > the proposed GR; we obviously *don't* have agreement in Debian over what > should or should not be considered a "program", so I think that's begging > the question.
However, your proposed amendment declares that "firmware" should not be considered a program. Can you please tell me what "firmware" is? I've seen a half dozen definitions tossed around recently, and I haven't a fig of a clue which one you mean: 1) A program which runs on a peripheral processor 2) A program which is distributed by the hardware manufacturer 3) A program which is controlled by the hardware manufacturer 4) A program which runs out of NVRAM or ROM instead of RAM 5) A program which, if you change it, voids the warranty for the hardware on which it runs, 6) A program which is necessary to support a piece of device hardware and for which we don't happen to have source I can't properly evaluate or think about this amendment while this rather crucial element remains unresolved. Also, it would seem very bizarre to say "a program which ... is not really a program", so can you find a wording in which you don't define firmware as a particular sort of program, only to then declare that programs of that sort aren't really programs at all? > Yes, these are reasonable definitions of both "program" and "firmware." What is the definition of "firmware" which you are using? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
