[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: please release sarge instead of removing binary firmware

Sam Hartman wrote:

>>>>>> "Evan" == Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org> 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.
> --Sam

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Reply to: