"Remco" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 16:51, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: >> "Remco" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>Is that loaded microcode generated by the kernel, or is it an unknown >>>magic blob of bytes? I know that the kernel developers hate such blobs >>>for practical reasons, and I also don't believe that it would >>>constitute free software. The nouveau blob was quickly made obsolete >>>by reverse engineering it. Now the developers know exactly how it >>>works, and are able to fix bugs. The kernel generates the firmware on >>>the fly and then sends it to the GPU. This should be the case for all >>>microcode, before Linux can be considered entirely free and >>>dependable. >>> >> You miss my point. At least AFAICT the microcode isn't in that file, so the >> freeness of the microcode is unrelated to the freeness of that file. In any >> case, even if it's there, the entire file is GPL v2, so it's Free. Nothing >> in the GPL requires code comments. >> > >That's not true. Binary blobs aren't just "code without comments". >They are obfuscated machine code, not in the preferred form for >modification, and that's explicitly prohibited by the GPL > >I believe you're right that the problem (if it exists), is not with >*that* file. But that doesn't make the problem go away, of course; it >just moves it. > Certainly, but the point is the so called free kernel does more than just remove code that is arguably non-free. It also changes Free code to take away user's choice to use such blobs if they choose to. That's a political change that reduces user's freedom to use the system the way they want to. It's fine, IMO, for such a political kernel to exist, but it's fundamentally in conflict with the values of Ubuntu and not appropriate for our archive. Scott K -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
