> > even in cases where it *is* documented, this is not by any > > stretch of the imagination a typical use case. [Peter 'p2' De Schrijver] > That's not true. Firmware can created by anyone and requires only > documentation and a compiler/linker for the target processor. In many > cases the CPU used is already supported by some free toolchain. I know about the free firmware source in aic7xxx and sym53c8xx. Interestingly, the examples you cite are exactly where we do *not* have any issue - those firmware files are already unambiguously DFSG-free. You might stop and think about why this is not a coincidence. Think about about why the only evidence you can bring to support your point are cases that don't matter anyway. And I still don't think anyone could argue that it would be reasonable to stick a driver on a Debian CD with a README that says "if you want to use this driver, you'll need to write a firmware file for your SCSI card. Use the following assembler...." Do any of you seriously believe that Debian users would be satisfied with a driver that worked only after they sat down and wrote a firmware file using some free tools helpfully provided in Debian? Do you think Debian users would consider the driver useful if shipped in that state? If so, there's no point in continuing the discussion, as we have absolutely no common ground. Peter
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature