Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 10:17:16PM +0200, Tobias Frost a écrit : > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:10:24PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:37:49PM +0000, Bill Allombert a écrit : > > > Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit : > > > > Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored > > > > in > > > > your hardware is better than having it loaded from your OS? > > > > > > My position is that the laws governing embedded firmware are much > > > more favorable to the users than the laws governing freestanding > > > firmware. > > > > To gives a random example: firmware-iwlwifi > > (by the way the link in packages.d.o to the copyright file does not work > > https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//non-free/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-nonfree_20210315-3_copyright > > return 404 > > ) > > > > * No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this software > > is permitted. > > FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED > > > > You cannot disclaim warranty on hardware. You have to provide statutory > > warranty. > > You can't disclaim statutory warranty, regardless if its hardware or software. > > However, you can write a lot of sentences in your licenses, even some > sentences > which are legally ineffective… > > Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice, but my oppinion.
I am not a lawyer either, but Intel _does_ have lawyers that drafted this that way, and they know exactly what advantage they can get from it. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
