On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 08:05:04PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 12:00:06PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > "Firmware" are programs. They are binary executables designed to run on a > > CPU. > > Source code is clearly mandatory under the DFSG for programs. > > There is no room for discussion here; the binary-only firmware is clearly > > non-free. > I think trying to declare firmware to be "not a program", in order to > permit it in main without including source, is contrived; if Debian wants > to allow firmware without source, it shouldn't use a faulty definition > of "program" to accomplish that. Technically it used the definition of "software" (as opposed to "firmware", "hardware" and "documentation") to do this; but in any case it does not do so anymore. > Instead, it should say what it means: > "we don't require source for this class of program". It seems much more > honest to answer the question "do we want to require source for firmware > programs?"--and change the DFSG if it disagrees with the project's > conclusion--than to ask "do we want to pretend firmware isn't a program, > so we can ignore the DFSG's source requirements?" These days we require the same things of everything in main, except license texts themselves. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature