Bug#494120: binary firmware in drivers/media/dvb/frontends/tda10021.c
Hi Steve,
I think we're wasting our time here; the bug is closed and I don't intend to
reopen it. However you said some inaccuracies that I feel need to be
corrected.
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 11:07:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > You might have a point here; the root of the problem seems to be the
> > definition of "source code", and the DFSG doesn't resolve this ambiguity.
> > Some think "source code" is the preferred form of modification for any
> > form of data, some think it only applies to certain types of data, etc.
> > And then even "preferred" doesn't mean the same to everyone!
>
> No, this entirely misses the point, which is that the DFSG does not require
> source code for works which are not programs.
Perhaps you're referring to DFSG #2 "The program must include source code".
In this context the "program" is Linux, the kernel. The only remaining
question is what is the "source code" of Linux, and I don't see that the
DFSG resolves that in one or the other way.
Or perhaps you're referring to SC #1. It used to be that it explicitly
required "software" to be free, and then we used to have a lot of fun
argueing about what "software" means. Fortunately, GR 2004/003 resolved
this by removing that word (btw I acknowledge your merit in being one of
the seconders of that GR). This is the reason we've been appliing DFSG to
all kind of works: firmware, documentation, artwork...
IMHO, the problem we have here is that we're so worried about the literal
interpretation of the foundation documents, that when we see an ambiguity
we fail to recognise it, and pretend it doesn't exist.
> > Overall, it sounds like a gray area to me. Has this been discussed in
> > -legal?
>
> I don't remember, but it doesn't matter. -legal is an advisory body only.
> It's been discussed on -legal, -kernel, and -release for sure.
Yes, -legal is an advisory body, that's why I suggest checking with -legal
when we want to obtain advice. Are you impliing that their opinion is not
relevant?
This links to what I said above about ambiguities; I believe the only way to
resolve them is through discussion and consensus. -legal is IMHO the right
place to discuss DFSG interpretation; -kernel sounds like the right place to
discuss a specific application of that interpretation, once a consensus is
built on it. -release does AFAICT have nothing to do with either of these
things.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
Reply to: