Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Manoj wrote:
> > Actually, I disagree, and, even worse, so does the common
> > definition of the phrase computer program: asking google about
> > define: computer program gives:
> > ,----
> > | * A computer program is a set of statements or instructions to be
> > | used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring
> > | about a certain result.
> > |
> > www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9710.html
> But Debian has a tradition of ignoring the common definition of phrases.
> Have you tried asking google to define software, for example?
> I think the key distinction (as far as I'm concerned) is that Debian
> isn't producing a distribution for the microcontroller in my
> fibrechannel card, it's producing a distribution for my computer.
> In order to make my fibrechannel card work, it has to poke some bits
> in a documented way. Even if there happens to be an ARM onboard that
> card that's running a program, that ARM isn't running Debian.
One of the purposes of having access to the prefered form of modification, is
to be able to fix bugs.
If the firmware for your fibrechannel card has a bug, are you currently able
to fix it ? And if so, do you think the binary-only firmware you have
available is the prefered form of modification ?