Re: please release sarge instead of removing binary firmware
Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 10:08:38AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> People seem to be assuming that we need to build all this binary
>> firmware from source.
>>
>> That's not really true. We need to have the source. We need to have
>> the tools for turning that source into binary code.
...well, to satisfy the traditional requirements for going into 'main'
rather than 'contrib'.
> Uhm, that last bit is an escalation. From reading the discussion, I was
> under the impression that we just want to have the source, and not being
> able to compile it.
>
> AIUI, these binary firmwares are usually generated using proprietary
> tools, so requiring that we also have the toolchain to transform the
> source into the binary will be next to impossible to satisfy for all the
> drivers I guess.
You mean "for most of the drivers". :-)
Actually, embedded proprietary libraries are likely to be much more
problematic licensing-wise than the compiler/assembler/etc. (and also
harder to replace with free alternatives without massive rewriting).
> Further, I think the GPL does not mandate the licensed program to be
> buildable in a non-tainted environment (cf. bootstrapping), so just
> having the PFOM (preferred form of modification[tm]) should be enough
> for those firmwares, I believe.
For satisfying the GPL, absolutely. For satisfying the DFSG, generally that
situation means 'contrib', not 'main'.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: