dropped misc by accident On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:16AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > > But what about the different case where the company permits > > redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source > > code. Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case? > > Of course and going by your description it is nothing but hardware at > that point > > No, that description refers to a different case.
No it does not. During boot a Linux kernel will check AND UPDATE microcode to CPUs if necessary. It is exactly the same case. You are twisting the meaning around again. > > so there is no ethics violation (whatever that means since > you refuse to explain it). It is just like micro code and a circuit. > > I think firmware is equivalent to a circuit if it is inside the > hardware and users don't install software there. What you are saying is that hardware is hardware if it contains the flash part. If you have an identical piece of hardware that requires OS assist to load the SAME firmware onto it it is software. Which is these a lot because flash is expensive and therefore you leave the firmware on disk and load it at boot time. The user has nothing to do with this; he/she does not perform any actions. It is probably time to go check all the FSF infrastructure because I bet you'll find a lot of parts that require OS assist to load firmware. > > Here we are talking about firmware which users always do install. > (That is the reason why anyone would consider distributing it with an > operating system.) So that is not equivalent to a circuit. Then what is a circuit? What did you study at MIT (not a mean questions I am honestly curious)? Man you are hard to talk to. You keep making stuff up and don't reply to questions people ask you. I even tried to ask you politely.
