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

Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations

* Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> [2008-10-28 16:38:41 +1100]:

> > Still, the firmware blob that you load into the chip isn't x86 code
> > for the host -- it's raw junk for the chip.
> That “raw junk” is, if I understand you correctly, instructions and
> data for controlling the behaviour of the processor on the PCI chip.
> How is this different from saying that the machine-code form of a
> program is “raw junk for the motherboard's CPU”?

What Jeff seems to be saying is that the tools the hardware
manufacturers use to modify the firmware work with it in that binary
form, as opposed to most software which is compiled into "machine-code
form" from separate human-readable source code. This would appear to be
akin to editing a raster image in an image editor while keeping it in
JPEG form, as opposed to using either a more complex format supporting
layers etc., or a vector graphics format.

> What, then, does the chip manufacturer — who, if I understand you
> correctly, is the copyright holder and vendor of the firmware — have
> as the means of generating *new* processor firmware targeted to the
> *same*, already-sold, hardware?
> I would argue that that form of the work meets the definition of
> “source code for the firmware”. Yes?

Again, assuming I'm not misspeaking, that form of the work is already
what we have.
mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: