On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 12:14:10PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > 2) there are now drivers which contains non-free firmware blobs, with
> > explicit licence, and these are thus distributable. A quick search for
> > fw_ revealed 159 such files in 2.6.15.
>
> I would l
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060111 12:57]:
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 09:13:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>> > how can you consider it as non-program. It is indeed composed of
>> > machine code destined to run on the controller of the device the driver
>> > is writ
Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 09:13:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>> how can you consider it as non-program. It is indeed composed of machine
>> code destined to run on the controller of the device the driver is
>> written for.
>
> This is incorrect. I know firmware[tm] blobs wh
Sven Luther wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am cross posting to debian-release and debian-boot, since this will
> affect them too.
> Basically, the situation is like this :
>
> 1) there where drivers under implicit GPL licence with binary only
> firmware. Since there was no explicit licence for thi
Kyle McMartin wrote:
> The question is: when you remove the firmware from the driver, and all
> it is, is a file sitting in /lib/firmware/; and it's contents are just
> non-executable hex,
Sorry, it is executable. For instance, the tg3 code is simply MIPS binary
which can be disassembled with bin
* Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060111 12:57]:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 09:13:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > how can you consider it as non-program. It is indeed composed of machine
> > code
> > destined to run on the controller of the device the driver is written for.
> This is incorre
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 12:56:44PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 09:13:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > how can you consider it as non-program. It is indeed composed of machine
> > code
> > destined to run on the controller of the device the driver is written for.
>
> Th
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 09:13:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> how can you consider it as non-program. It is indeed composed of machine code
> destined to run on the controller of the device the driver is written for.
This is incorrect. I know firmware[tm] blobs which only includes data.
You can't
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060110 21:16]:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 05:19:47PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > difference to this. It might however make an difference to
> > GPL-compatibility, unless the license is GPL-compatible anyways.
>
> Nope, please read my posts on debian-legal abou
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 05:19:47PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Kyle McMartin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060110 16:20]:
> > I would argue it's the former. I can see the argument when it's a part of
> > the source code, but not when it's a completely seperate entity.
>
> Sorry, but there is no differe
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 10:00:53AM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> > > 3) an effort seems to be happening inside the upstream kernel to use the
> > > request_firmware infrastructure which allows to load firmware code from
> > > userland through an hotplug mechanism. There seem to be more and mo
* Kyle McMartin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060110 16:20]:
> I would argue it's the former. I can see the argument when it's a part of
> the source code, but not when it's a completely seperate entity.
Sorry, but there is no difference regarding DFSG: If the binary blob is
actually seperated from the ker
> > 3) an effort seems to be happening inside the upstream kernel to use the
> > request_firmware infrastructure which allows to load firmware code from
> > userland through an hotplug mechanism. There seem to be more and more
> > drivers going this way, since there aare more in current git
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 02:52:07AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > b) we move the affected modules to non-free. Well those that have their
> > licencing solved, the others will simply no more be distributed, or
> > distributed form an unofficial source.
>
> Probably overkill, and causes sig
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:03:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > In 2004, there was a GR that decided to put everything in main under the
> > DFSG. We had some discussions, but in the end, the result was that all
> > the non-free firmware bits have to be removed from main before we can
> > release
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:03:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> I think everyone agrees that a) is not a possibility. Both b) and c) require a
> non-negligible amount of work, altough b) is less work than c), but c) is the
> better solution, and also to the best of my knowledge the one which upstrea
Hi all,
I am cross posting to debian-release and debian-boot, since this will affect
them too.
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 10:04:45AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> at least I lost track a bit, so this mail is basically a question to
> bring me up to speed.
Ok, we had a long discussion on #
17 matches
Mail list logo
