Re: more evil firmwares found
Ryan Underwood wrote:
> You're right. So go with the former interpretation. DFSG#2 requires
> all programs to have source code available. There is a typical and
> obvious division between a program and its supporting materials. My
> claim is that only through a massive logical leap can we declare the
> supporting materials to fall under the definition of "program" as well.
> This leap is what is required to remove a freely licensed albeit
> indeterminate binary-blob from Debian on a DFSG basis.
> Either way, DFSG#2 cannot be construed to apply to such things even in
> the strictest of readings. Most of the Social Contract refers to
> "software", where DFSG#2 refers to "program". Why the verbal
> distinction if there was not an intent for there ever to be a
> distinction in practice?
OK, so allow there to be sourceless non-programs. Seems reasonable to me,
though I might change my mind.
Anyway, we can argue about that later, because it doesn't apply to the cases
under discussion. :-) The firmware which has been complained about has
been admitted to be programs by everyone with any understanding of it. For
instance, the Radeon microcode is a program for running on the video card
There are none so blind as those who will not see.