Re: ITP plex86, if it complies to DFSG
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 11:23:38PM -0800, ferret@phonewave.net wrote:
> > Right. The question I didn't exactly ask is if BIOS images, which are
> > explicitely freely distributable for a specific emulator (not necessarily
> > WITH a specific emulator; that would intrude on the packager's perrogative
> > to split out common elements and avoid duplication) but without source,
> > should be treated with the slightly relaxed standards of device firmware,
> > or should be treated as regular software. I can see approximately equal
> > valid reasons for choosing either standard. You seem to be saying that
> > BIOS for emulators should be fully open-source.
>
> Well, I thought that was our position in the past. Somebody else has
> posted to say that vice is in contrib because the ROMs it needs
> are not even freely distributable, let alone open source.
> The ROMs for x48 aren't freely distributable either (they are
> copyright Hewlett-Packard) and it's in main.
>
> If nothing else I would like consistency. x48 is not usable as is,
> and ROMs are not freely available on the Internet (or not
> legally anyway); you must download them from your own calculator.
> So does it belong in main? Doubtful. But I think x48 is an
> even more extreme case than plex86, where at least the ROMs
> are available.
>
> It's a good question, especially when you consider firmware etc.
> It seems different some how, but it probably isn't really.
>
> I don't think we can really say they are just data; otherwise
> we could claim the binaries for netscape, acroread and the
> rest of the software in non-free are just data too, and
> ship them in main.
Yep. I think the crucial point here is if the executable code in question
is designed to execute on an hardware peripheral device and communicate
with software running on the host CPU through an API (Note that EMULATING
the device for testing purposes is still kosher, even though now the
firmware would be in fact executing on the host CPU), or is designed
to execute on the host CPU as an application or portion thereof.
Here, we can easily place Creative DXr2 firmware (for example) into the
first category, and place Netscape into the second category.
I'd have to say now that probably the plex86 BIOS would probably have to
go in the application category, IF it is written/modified for plex86
instead of being a 'generic' BIOS with no modifications.
A generic BIOS, not modified for use by an emulator, but freely
redistributable could still be considered 'firmware' in the sense above,
in that it was designed to be generic and not for that (or any other)
specific machine. I don't think the plex86 BIOS would qualify, though.
Reply to: