On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Solomon Peachy <pi...@shaftnet.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:19:07PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> Still not reasonable for Fedora, I think. Red Hat, and RHEL, can >> manage registered licensing to build this binary blob. But binary >> blobs with no tool chain to build htem? > > So it's okay to ship opaque-but-redistributable binary blobs that don't > run on the host CPU (aka device firmware) without any source code (much > less a toolchain that can build it), but shipping something that comes > with fully redistributable (if not outright Free) source code is bad > because there's no Free toolchain to compile it? That doesn't make > sense. > > I'm just trying to understand how FPGA "firmware" is any different than > regular device firmware, and how having source code code available > suddenly turns something from okay to include into something we can't. > > - Solomon
I detest both. Rechecking the published standard at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Binary_Firmware, it doesn't specifically list "must be compilable by Fedora developers with Fedora tools", so you've a point. It's still making me hold my nose and go "eewwww". -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
