Re: non-free firmware in the linux kernel
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Bastian Blank (firstname.lastname@example.org) [060111 12:57]:
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 09:13:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>> > how can you consider it as non-program. It is indeed composed of
>> > machine code destined to run on the controller of the device the driver
>> > is written for.
>> This is incorrect. I know firmware[tm] blobs which only includes data.
>> You can't decide if it is something which can be executed somewhere.
> Can you define what "execute" means? Is it execution if e.g. data is
> processed that defines a sound-wave for a DSP?
OK, let's agree that DSP sound-wave definitions and similar transformation
tables of data for sound cards are fine and free, because binary blobs
probably *are* the preferred form for modification of those (if anyone
actually wanted to modify them). (Of course, that's just based on my
minimal knowledge; if a sound card hacker steps up and says "no, those
blobs are definitely not the preferred form for modification", I would have
to defer to his/her superior knowledge.)