On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 11:40:22PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > That doesn't really change the fact that drivers that only work after
> > pointing it at a non-free data block have a non-free dependency, and
> > belong in contrib, though.
>
> The driver operates as designed regardless of what is
Glenn Maynard writes:
> So you're saying that the loaded-at-runtime option allows for DFSG-free
> versions to be implemented, so they should be allowed in main to encourage
> that particular design option over the "static ROM" option. (There's
> also the EPROM option, which acts like hardware--th
Hello. I researching why MPEG-1 video and audio layers 1 and 2 do not
require any royalty payments. I have been googling for the past hour
and haven't been able to come up with any concrete explanation
(although it may just be that my google skills are not up to snuff).
I am guessing that MPEG-1
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 09:50:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> One argument that has appeared previously is that the driver depends
> on the firmware blob because if a different blob were used, the
> hardware might behave differently. That begs for consideration of the
> obverse case: the hardwa
Glenn Maynard writes:
> Marco's argument appears to be that drivers should be allowed in main
> that only function if they have access to a non-free firmware blob;
> that a driver that, lacking the file, merely bails and says "download
> this non-free piece first" should be allowed in main.
One a
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I see nothing that suggests that "non-free component" is only meant
> to apply to material shipped by Debian. Nor is there any suggestion
> that it applies only to software (which is unsurprising, given the
> care taken to remove all reference to softwa
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 11:46:03PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I see nothing that suggests that "non-free component" is only meant to
> apply to material shipped by Debian. Nor is there any suggestion that it
> applies only to software (which is unsurprising, given the care taken to
> remove al
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 11:46:03PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Oh, come off it. The social contract says:
>
> "We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free"
> in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software Guidelines". We
> promise that the Debian system and all it
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fundamentally, if I can say "apt-get install driver" and have the driver
> work (at least for some hardware), it's main; if I have to first track
> down and install some non-free pieces, it's contrib. This "but it's not
> the driver that needs it, the dr
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 02:23:52PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> And if the device has an eprom, then "for the driver to work, you have to find
> and install an eprom containing a copy of the code". (The eprom is harder to
> lose, of course, so it's *usually* already installed, but it's not clear t
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > And that is a functional difference: in one case the owner of the
> > device who has downloaded some Debian software has to go get some
> > other software and load it onto his machine; in the other case he
> > doesn't.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 02
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 02:23:52PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> And if the device has an eprom, then "for the driver to work, you have to find
> and install an eprom containing a copy of the code".
Which device is this?
> (The eprom is harder to lose, of course, so it's *usually* already
> instal
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
> However, suppose that your statement were true. Why stop there?
> Consider the case of a piece of hardware which could not be initialized
> correctly except by the Windows driver. In order for the device to
> work, a user would need to boot up Windows,
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> And that is a functional difference: in one case the owner of the
> device who has downloaded some Debian software has to go get some
> other software and load it onto his machine; in the other case he
> doesn't.
That's not a functional difference
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> The driver is opening a block of data on disk, reading it and sending it
> to the hardware. If that data does not exist, the driver will be
> incapable of driving the hardware. For the driver to work, in addition
> to installing it and the hardware devi
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Huh? If a driver requires a firmware blob be copied from a driver CD,
>
> Please repeat after me: "drivers do not require firmwares, hardware
> devices require firmwares".
First of all, no: *both* require the firmware in order to perform their
fun
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 14:51 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > There's no interesting functional difference between these two things,
> > except that in one case the driver has to make a call to load the
> > firmware and in the other case it doesn't
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Regardless of whether this dependency is expressed in our package
>>> management system, most drivers depend on non-free firmware.
>>
>> They depen
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 11:44:37AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >Huh? If a driver requires a firmware blob be copied from a driver CD,
> Please repeat after me: "drivers do not require firmwares, hardware
> devices require firmwares".
The driver is opening a block of data on disk, reading it and
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > And, if that seems nonsensical to you, you're right -- or, at least,
>> > that scenario seems rather nonsensical to me. Debian currently doesn't
>> > represent the kind of market which could lead to this kind of
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And, if that seems nonsensical to you, you're right -- or, at least,
> > that scenario seems rather nonsensical to me. Debian currently doesn't
> > represent the kind of market which could lead to this kind of situation.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 05:44:3
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Sebastian Feltel wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 23:32:17, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > It probably isn't legitimate to claim a license in this manner in most
> > jurisdictions anyway. You normally need an explicit grant from the
> > copyright holder (while there are some case-l
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Regardless of whether this dependency is expressed in our package
>> management system, most drivers depend on non-free firmware.
>
> They depend on the presence of appropriate and properly functio
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 04:43:50PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >> Please repeat after me: "drivers do not require firmwares, hardware
> >> devices require firmwares".
> >Then, how do you explain the ipw2200 case where driver version 0.5 and
> >less will only work with a certain firmware and versio
Hello Andrew,
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 23:32:17, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> It probably isn't legitimate to claim a license in this manner in most
> jurisdictions anyway. You normally need an explicit grant from the
> copyright holder (while there are some case-law precedents in some
> places for ce
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Regardless of whether this dependency is expressed in our package
> management system, most drivers depend on non-free firmware.
They depend on the presence of appropriate and properly functioning
devices, which are typically implemented using non-fr
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Given that the entire purpose of the driver is to actually *drive a
>>device*, and that it can't do that at all without the firmware, then the
>
> No, apparently you do not understand how the driver, hardware and
> firmware interact. The driver is f
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >> > The person who has the device doesn't neceessarily have the firmware,
>> >> > because
>> >> > the firmware can be removed.
>> >> The person doesn't have the device at that point -- only part of it.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That quip was a comment on the straw-man scenario where hardware vendors
> were redesigning their products to move a driver for that hardware from
> debian contrib to main.
>
> And, if that seems nonsensical to you, you're right -- or, at least,
> that sce
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 04:38:06PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> It's not obvious that this would be an improvement which benefits users.
Which is not the same claim as "it doesn't help our users."
--
Raul
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It does strike me as a bit mad, to suggest that hardware vendors are
> > going to be redesign their hardware, to move a driver from debian contrib
> > to main.
> >
> > If it were that important to them, they'd should have done it right in
> > the first p
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> > The person who has the device doesn't neceessarily have the firmware,
> >> > because
> >> > the firmware can be removed.
> >> The person doesn't have the device at that point -- only part of it.
> > The same reasoning applies for both example
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Oct 25, Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Huh? If a driver requires a firmware blob be copied from a driver CD,
>> >>> Please repeat after me: "drivers
On Oct 25, Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Huh? If a driver requires a firmware blob be copied from a driver CD,
> >>> Please repeat after me: "drivers do not require firmwares, hardware
> >>> devices
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 10:59:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 03:41:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Is this the case even if the firmware is in a flash chip attached to the
> >> device? If the total amount of non-fre
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> >>Huh? If a driver requires a firmware blob be copied from a driver CD,
>> > Please repeat after me: "drivers do not require firmwares, hardware
>> > devices require firmwares".
>>
>> And the driver
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
Huh? If a driver requires a firmware blob be copied from a driver CD,
>>> Please repeat after me: "drivers do not require firmwares, hardware
>>> devices require firmwares".
>>And the driver requires a functioning hardwar
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The reason we don't include free software that has non-free
> dependencies in main is that we want to discourage people from using
> non-free software. If the user already has non-free code in ROM,
> then there is the same amount of non-free software be
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 07:07 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > On the other hand, if it's clearly software when it's on CD then it's
>> > clearly software when it's on eeprom.
>>
>> False. That's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >Huh? If a driver requires a firmware blob be copied from a driver CD,
>> Please repeat after me: "drivers do not require firmwares, hardware
>> devices require firmwares".
>Then, how do you explain the ipw2200 case where driver version 0.5 and
>less will only work wit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Oh, wait, maybe you're suggesting that they had some OTHER reason for
>putting those bits in rom? If that's the case, your claim that it
>doesn't help our users is a bit specious.
It's not obvious that this would be an improvement which benefits users.
--
ciao,
Marco
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 02:21:03PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Does this not strike you as mad? We make a distinction between main and
>> contrib because we want to discourage non-free code. The distinction
>> you're drawing instead merely encourages ve
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 02:21:03PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Whichever argument you're using, it leads to the following situation. A
> vendor releases a piece of hardware. It requires run-time loadable
> firmware. We put the driver in contrib. A customer comes to the vendor
> and asks for a v
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 12:52:19PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Brian, we are talking about identical code.
>
> Are we?
In many contexts, yes.
>> Software doesn't stop being software if it's burned into a ROM instead
>> of being supplied with the OS.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 12:52:19PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Brian, we are talking about identical code.
>
> Are we?
In many contexts, yes.
>> Software doesn't stop being software if it's burned into a ROM instead
>> of being supplied with the OS.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 12:52:19PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Brian, we are talking about identical code.
Are we?
> Software doesn't stop being software if it's burned into a ROM instead
> of being supplied with the OS.
It does, however, cease to be a dependency issue if those who have the
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 08:56:26AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> I probably would, if I knew for certain what you meant by "work titles".
By "work title", I mean the title of the work in a legal sense; for
example, as it is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office in the case,
of copyrights, or wi
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 07:07 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On the other hand, if it's clearly software when it's on CD then it's
> > clearly software when it's on eeprom.
>
> False. That's why we call it firmware, not just "software living on
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 01:18:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Get real. Software does not change its nature depending on the media
> it's stored on.
Some aspects do change. But it's true that what a person thinks about
that software doesn't need to change (depending on the person doing the
thin
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 11:44:37AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Huh? If a driver requires a firmware blob be copied from a driver CD,
> Please repeat after me: "drivers do not require firmwares, hardware
> devices require firmwares".
Then, how do you explain the ipw
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>Huh? If a driver requires a firmware blob be copied from a driver CD,
> > Please repeat after me: "drivers do not require firmwares, hardware
> > devices require firmwares".
>
> And the driver requires a functioning hardware device. Thus, the
> load
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>Huh? If a driver requires a firmware blob be copied from a driver CD,
>> Please repeat after me: "drivers do not require firmwares, hardware
>> devices require firmwares".
>And the driver requires a functioning hardware device. Thus, the
This is not an use of the verb
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On the other hand, if it's clearly software when it's on CD then it's
>> clearly software when it's on eeprom.
>False. That's why we call it firmware, not just "software living on a device".
Get real. Software does not change its nature depending on the media
it's stor
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Huh? If a driver requires a firmware blob be copied from a driver CD,
> Please repeat after me: "drivers do not require firmwares, hardware
> devices require firmwares".
And the driver requires a functioning hardware devic
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I don't understand how there's any disagreement in this case: it's clearly
>> software, covered by the DFSG (or at least the one Debian will be using
>> soon), it's required (a Depends), and clearly non-fre
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
>> > The person who has the device doesn't neceessarily have the firmware,
>> > because
>> > the firmware can be removed.
>> The person doesn't have the device at that point -- only part of it.
>
> The same reasoni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The total amount of non-free software on a user's system is different if the
>firmware comes pre-loaded on the device than if we have to load it from the
>OS, isn't it?
No.
--
ciao,
Marco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Huh? If a driver requires a firmware blob be copied from a driver CD,
Please repeat after me: "drivers do not require firmwares, hardware
devices require firmwares".
--
ciao,
Marco
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't understand how there's any disagreement in this case: it's clearly
> software, covered by the DFSG (or at least the one Debian will be using
> soon), it's required (a Depends), and clearly non-free.
On the other hand, if it's clearly software whe
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 10:45:18PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Ok, I guess somewhere I lost track of exactly what was being argued in this
> thread. I agree, if the user (or some group of users to whom the driver is
> useful) already have the required firmware, either in the device's flash or
>
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 10:45:18PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Ok, I guess somewhere I lost track of exactly what was being argued in this
> thread. I agree, if the user (or some group of users to whom the driver is
> useful) already have the required firmware, either in the device's flash or
>
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 10:59:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 03:41:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Is this the case even if the firmware is in a flash chip attached to the
> >> device? If the total amount of non-fre
62 matches
Mail list logo
