Re: ITP plex86, if it complies to DFSG
ferret@phonewave.net writes:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> 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.
AFAIK the bios is written for some realy old vga graphics card and the
bochs author got permission to use it while emulating that graphics
card. Its not written or modfied for bochs or plex but rather the
other way around.
Also the bios is running in bochs on its virtual maschine or under
plex on the real cpu. So for bochs ist firmware and for plex its a
program.
> 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.
I started writing a FB Graphics Device for Bochs and adapting that to
plex should close this thread. :)
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: