Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 06:24:12PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:53:51PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > No, because those are not linked together with the GPLed code, but are a mere
> > > > > aggregation of works inside the same media, i.e. the binary file. Those
> > > > > non-free firmware will never run inside the same memory space as the kernel,
> > > > > and are offloaded to a peripheral processor, and the communication media
> > > > > between the kernel and this peripheral processor running said firmware is
> > > > > clearly defined, there is no doubt that those non-free firmware do not break
> > > > > the kernel GPL.
> > >
> > > > They are linked in, they have symbols, the code directly references
> > > > their address. Can you name one tool that will easily remove such
> > > No. They are a char array, it's data copied where the hardware wants it.
> > > It's not code called by other functions.
> > Yeah, exact, its mips or arm machine code, uploaded to the embedded core in
> > the chip used for the peripheral in question.
> Often it isn't, unless you want to call the content of a configuration
> register bank "code".
Given that the specs of most of those chips are not available except under
NDA, how would you make the difference ? And even then, once could consider
that the definition of those registers are kind of part of the source to said
But if you feel like it, go ahead, and provide us with the extensive list of
all those cases, and provide evidence in how those firmware blobs are only
register dumps, and then we can indeed let some of those in main. At least we
would probably need the format of the register dump in question though.
Also, this then has implications on the miboot boot sector, which is currently
not even allowed in non-free, since there is no clear licencing about it, and
apple doesn't care about decades old code.