Re: firmware status for eagle-usb-*
Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > It seems clear to me that the distinction here is whether we
> > treat the firmware in question as software or hardware.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:32:22AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The firmware that we are talking about is, in every case I've actually
> investigated, a set of instructions that are carried out by something
> that approximates a processor. How is this not equivilent to software?
The social contract uses more words than "software".
Put into the context you've expressed here: software which our system
doesn't deal with as software is not a component of our system.
Software which our system deals as software and which we depend on for
some result is a component of our system.
And, yes, I know you have expressed a desire to change how we approach