Re: please release sarge instead of removing binary firmware
Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Evan" == Evan Prodromou <email@example.com> writes:
> Evan> Why are we deciding that the source code released by the
> Evan> copyright holder -- usually hex-encoded binary in C -- isn't
> Evan> the preferred source format? Can't we just get some kind of
> Evan> assurance from the copyright holder that, yes, that gigantic
> Evan> C array is their preferred source version?
Go for it!
> If such assurance is true, then yes.
This is, in essence, the point. In almost all of these cases, I find it
extremely hard to believe that it is, especially without any such explicit
assurance; most of them just plain look assembler- or compiler-generated.
> I suspect there is probably at
> least one chip out there where people really do just do bit twiddling
> on binary images to change the firmware. ANd if such a binary blob is
> placed under the GPL by its copyright holder and then placed in the
> Linux kernel, then that code is free and GPL compatible.
> But there are a lot more chips where that is not the preferred form of
> modification. And it doesn't matter so much what the copyright holder
> says as what they actually do when they want to change their firmware.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.