Re: Bug#239952: kernel-source-2.6.4: qla2xxx contains non-free firmware
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 26, Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> wrote:
>
>> > No, there is no difference. Your hardware needs some non-free code to
>> > work, and there is nothing you can do about it.
>> Has the hardware somehow been designed to not work if it is fed free
>> code instead of non-free? How on earth does one get circuitry to make
>> that distinction?
> The firmware could be signed, but this is usually not a problem.
> The real problem is that there is no pratical way to rewrite from scratch
> certain code.
Which is why it's important that it be available as source code. *sigh*
These are arguments that the freedom of the code matters -- and therefore
arguments against allowing Debian "main" to contain this sort of non-free
code.
> (If you don't believe this then please introduce me to
> sombody able to write the software which implements DSL modulations and
> is not already working for a modem vendor and/or encumbered by NDAs.
> And don't forget about the patents either.
Yes, these are a real danger, since they impinge on independent rewriting.
> Obviously he will get no
> documentation from the modem chipset producer, so let's look for an
> expert in hardware reverse engineering as well.)
Oh, anyone can do hardware reverse engineering; it's "just" an incredible
pain in the neck and takes forever.... ;-)
--
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Reply to: