On Thu, Sep 13, 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > We currently have an implementation that works, although > it works by downloading several firmwares for several devices > or even several countries. This is not what I want to have in > future since it's not needed and it's also hard to manage for > distributors. All those differences could be adjusted by > software even without module parameter hacks.
This argument doesn't hold water. The unpleasant point for users and distributors isn't the "binary-only" thing, it's the "no right to distribute" problem. And that's the same for firmware blobs or binary-only userspace blobs. IOW, if you can get the right to redistribute a binary-only userspace blob which incudes the firmware inside, why shouldn't you be able to get the right to redistribute just the firmware? Or the other way round: Do you think your binary-only software will be important enough so distributors will go through all the trouble of trying to get a license to include it in their distribution? If so, why wouldn't they do the same for the plain firmware blobs for in-kernel drivers? Johannes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
