Re: LCC and blobs
Matthew Garrett <email@example.com> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I don't believe policy or the SC does expand on what "requires"
>> means. This is the only self-consistent explanation I've seen which
>> allows Debian to ship a usable OS. Have you another?
> The parsimonious explanation is that the issue wasn't thought about in
> that much detail when the social contract was written. The archives tend
> to support this. The obvious thing to do here is not to attempt to find
> a way that we can interpret the SC that makes sense - the obvious thing
> to do here is to decide what we want the SC to say and then change it so
> that it matches that desire.
You're a DD and can say that. I'm not, and won't.
That said, or not, I do think there's a significant practical
difference between firmware which ships as software, say on a CD
accompanying the device, and firmware which ships on the device:
* The firmware on the CD is typically not redistributable by the end
user. Future users can't get it without somebody along the line
breaking a EULA.
* The firmware blob on CD, if free, can be easily modified by end
users. It's just software. Even given the preferred form for
modification, it's much more difficult to re-flash a firmware chip
on hardware not designed for regular firmware uploads.
So even given the opportunity to rewrite this bit, I'd suggest declining.
 Too lame to maintain a package, far too lame to pass the skills
test with the man-page-writing and pages and pages of questions.
Moderately in awe of those less lame.
Brian Sniffen email@example.com