On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 11:49:45PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If the driver does not provide any significant functionality without the
> > firmware, it belongs in contrib.
> >
> > If there are some cards which the driver drives which work wit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I think it's a question of what "dependence" means for contrib. If the
>driver absolutely _depends_ on using the non-free firmware, it should be
>in contrib. If the non-free firmware is optional, it should go into
>main.
Again, please explain which part of the policy defi
Marco d'Itri a écrit :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your driver can be compiled and successfully executed without the
firmware, so it should go in main because it's free software. As you
correctly stated, the card needs a firmware, not the device driver.
The hardware device may not perform useful wo
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 11:49:45PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Nowadays very few drivers will work without the presence of non-free
>> software. This may be located in flash, or it may be loaded from the
>> operating system. Why should a hardware im
Very large profit handling Money Judgments.
>From the beaches in Hawaii.
You can be the Boss.
Control when you want to work.
Lots of our associates earn 5,000US to 12,000US per mo.
Excellent training and support.
http://www.supernewsrequested.com/3/
More information or to stop receiving or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On the other side, if it is possible to distribute the firmware in the
>non-free section (I have to ask that to Texas Instrument), the package
>of the driver will have a Depends: or at least a Recommends: on the
>firmware package. In that case it seems that the driver
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>This package should be removed from Debian before Debian gets sued for
>copyright infringement.
Can you cut this bullshit please? You know well that Debian is not going
to get sued.
--
ciao,
Marco
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, there's shades of gray, here. If all the driver does is emit
a message CAN'T FIND NON-FREE FIRMWARE, ABORTING without the firmware,
it's hard to say that it doesn't depend on the firmware. But if the
This applies to almost every driver in
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>On the other side, if it is possible to distribute the firmware in the
>>non-free section (I have to ask that to Texas Instrument), the package
>>of the driver will have a Depends: or at least a Recommends: on the
>>firmw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>Of course, there's shades of gray, here. If all the driver does is emit
>>>a message CAN'T FIND NON-FREE FIRMWARE, ABORTING without the firmware,
>>>it's hard to say that it doesn't depend on the firmware. But if the
>> This applies to almost every driver in the Linux k
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Right, the package in main should not depend on an hypothetical package
>> from non-free.
>So rather than ship the driver in contrib and the firmware in
>non-free, you're suggesting that the driver go in main and the
>firmware not be shipped at all, even though that red
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>Right, the package in main should not depend on an hypothetical package
>>>from non-free.
>>
>>So rather than ship the driver in contrib and the firmware in
>>non-free, you're suggesting that the driver go in main and the
>>firmware not be shipped a
On Mon, 2004-11-10 at 10:27 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I think it's a question of what "dependence" means for contrib. If the
> >driver absolutely _depends_ on using the non-free firmware, it should be
> >in contrib. If the non-free firmware is optional, it should go into
> >main.
> Again, pleas
On Oct 11, Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think it's a question of what "dependence" means for contrib. If the
> > >driver absolutely _depends_ on using the non-free firmware, it should be
> > >in contrib. If the non-free firmware is optional, it should go into
> > >main.
> > Agai
On Mon, 2004-11-10 at 20:14 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Oct 11, Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I think it's a question of what "dependence" means for contrib. If the
> > > >driver absolutely _depends_ on using the non-free firmware, it should be
> > > >in contrib. If the non
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
Of course, there's shades of gray, here. If all the driver does is emit
a message CAN'T FIND NON-FREE FIRMWARE, ABORTING without the firmware,
it's hard to say that it doesn't depend on the firmware. But if the
>>>
Am I correct? Is his e-mail reply enough to liberate the non-free
parts of figlet?
[ Please Cc: me on replies ]
Thanks,
Carlos.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Carlos Laviola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:52:35 -0300
Subject: Re: Copyright license on some of your fi
Marco, it seems to me that there's a parallel case to non-free
firmware: dongleware. Perhaps you could explain how this philosophy
applies to that. If a piece of software is distributed under the GPL,
can I add functionality by putting it into firmware on a dongle and
having GCC call that?
-Bria
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marco, it seems to me that there's a parallel case to non-free
> firmware: dongleware. Perhaps you could explain how this philosophy
> applies to that. If a piece of software is distributed under the GPL,
> can I add functionality by putting it in
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You obviously missed the point. Almost every driver talks to a device
>> which needs some kind of firmware, but you obviously noticed the ones
>> which do not have it on a non-volatile medium.
>> Why sho
It's a perfectly reasonable means to discriminate. One is *in the
hardware*. If I buy a widget, I don't care whether it uses firmware
in an eeprom or a well-trained gerbil. It's a box. Software on my
CPU is different.
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Marco, it seems to me that there's a parallel case to non-free
> > firmware: dongleware. Perhaps you could explain how this philosophy
> > applies to that. If a piece of software is distributed under the GPL,
> > can I add functionality by put
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Marco, it seems to me that there's a parallel case to non-free
>> firmware: dongleware. Perhaps you could explain how this philosophy
>> applies to that. If a piece of software is distributed under t
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>There are drivers we ship that require you to have a specific version of
>>the firmware in eeprom. In at least one case, it's not possible to
>>provide this without the user returning the card so that extra flash can
>>be a
24 matches
Mail list logo
