Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:

> Please don't lose track of the fact that there's nothing inherently wrong
> with a sourceless binary if that's all the source anyone *has*.  

I think in most of the cases under consideration, we have firmware
which a hardware manufacturer wrote and then either published or stuck
inside a windows driver, and which then found its way into a Linux
driver.

So while your statement is right, the relevant "anyone" includes the
hardware manufacturer, who quite likely does have source in a more
convenient form than a pure binary.

> If the
> assembly was painstakingly reverse-engineered, it *is* the source for all
> intents and purposes [...]

Quite right, but assembly code is *not* binary.

Thomas