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

Re: LCC and blobs

Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Peter Van Eynde <pvaneynd@mailworks.org> writes:
Is your name input for a state-machine?

You should see what it does to TECO.  My name is a killing word.


>>[data == software ?]
Bingo.  Debian had this debate last year.  There was a giant vote over
it. Then another debate and another vote.

Hmm. I remember we had an "editorial change" that then turned into something completely different, followed by 6 damage limitation options and 1 hard line option. A damage limitation option won, but I if I read the matrix correctly the hard line option was defeated by _every_ damage limitation clause, so I would not be so certain that "we had this debate".

Post-sarge we will have the debate and I hope that this time ftp-master will state the consequences of the options in advance, so there are no surprises any more. Also having less then 7 options would also be nice.


I think I'm starting to understand your point of view. So _any_ use of the software without using non-DFSG data makes it free, right?

But what if loading the firmware is not required? That if the device was "warm-booted" in another OS? (I know there are technical limitations here) Would the driver-firmware relation still be a "depends"?

Oh, I have another use for the ipw2100 driver without firmware: it can recognise the card from the pci-id information. :-)

Please at least read Policy on what "Depends" means first.  If you

I see no mention of this in version There is:
|5.6.9.         Package interrelationship fields
-> see chapter 7
|7.2.      Binary Dependencies
-> is for debian packages. And has:
|The `Depends' field should be used if the depended-on package is required |for the depending package to provide a significant amount of |functionality.
|7.6.      Relationships between source and binary packages

There is no mention of dependency of packages on external data that fall outside the packaging system. So what meaning do you mean?

If you extend the rules for packages to firmware then the question becomes what "significant amount of functionality" is. In the past it was used for "can run", optional libraries were "Suggest"ed in.

pvaneynd@sharrow:~ :) $ cd /usr/lib/hotplug/firmware/
pvaneynd@sharrow:/usr/lib/hotplug/firmware :) $ ls
ipw2100-1.0.fw    ipw2100-1.1-p.fw  ipw2100-1.2-p.fw  ipw2100-1.3-p.fw
ipw2100-1.1.fw    ipw2100-1.2.fw    ipw2100-1.3.fw    isl3890
ipw2100-1.1-i.fw  ipw2100-1.2-i.fw  ipw2100-1.3-i.fw  LICENSE
pvaneynd@sharrow:/usr/lib/hotplug/firmware :) $ sudo mkdir t
pvaneynd@sharrow:/usr/lib/hotplug/firmware :) $ sudo mv * t/
mv: cannot move `t' to a subdirectory of itself, `t/t'
pvaneynd@sharrow:/usr/lib/hotplug/firmware :( $ l
pvaneynd@sharrow:/usr/lib/hotplug/firmware :) $ sudo modprobe -v ipw2100
insmod /lib/modules/2.6.8-1-686/kernel/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2100/ieee80211_crypt.ko insmod /lib/modules/2.6.8-1-686/kernel/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2100/ieee80211.ko
insmod /lib/modules/2.6.8-1-686/kernel/drivers/base/firmware_class.ko
insmod /lib/modules/2.6.8-1-686/kernel/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2100/ipw2100.ko

The module loaded without firmware, not? It detected my card, but failed to load the firmware.

ipw2100: Detected Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 Network Connection
ipw2100: eth1: Firmware 'ipw2100-1.3.fw' not available or load failed.
ipw2100: eth1: ipw2100_get_firmware failed: -2
ipw2100: eth1: Failed to power on the adapter.
ipw2100: eth1: Failed to start the firmware.
ipw2100Error calling regiser_netdev.
ipw2100: probe of 0000:02:02.0 failed with error -5

I would say this is a functional driver. It provides me with useful information about my system. The fact that I cannot connect to a wifi lan is the same situation as with grub not being able to load XP without the XP bootsector, if there were a free firmware with the same API I would be able to load and use it.

also read the archives, you'll have a chance at understanding the
position of other debaters here, and of generating original
arguments.  So far, this is all a repeat.  It wasn't convincing any of
the last couple times, so it won't be this time.

Well. The last couple of times I thought rationality would return and I grew tired of the gedanken-experiments going on, and actually I did not care for the documentation idiocy. I should have paied more attention to my history classes and how extremists will take over democratic regimes because the majority cannot be bothered resisting simplistic arguments until it is too late. Making Debian uninstallable because of mistaken beliefs is too much and I care enough to resists this. I survived Erik Naggum, so this should be a walk in the park.

Groetjes, Peter

Reply to: