Hi Florian, On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:27:07PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Steve Langasek: > > - The author's preferred form for modification may require non-free tools > > in order to be converted into its final "binary" form; e.g., some > > device firmware, videos, and graphics. > I would prefer if the term "firmware" would be defined or at least > explained in the GR. Something like: > firmware (data which is sent to attached devices for processing and > which is not, directly or indirectly, executed on the host CPU) I don't object to this. Is there agreement among the GR sponsors that this is the definition of firmware that should be used? > I'd actually see some restriction with regard to interoperability > (i.e. some reasonably documented interface between the firmware and > the driver code), but getting this right is likely not worth the > effort. Hmm, I'm not sure what that would look like at all; as someone else noted, one generally doesn't talk to the firmware even, one talks to the device. > A completely different issue is whether we take upstream's word for > GPL compability, or if we claim that something is not redistributable > because it contains a firmware blob *and* is licensed under the GPL as > a whole. Yes, I agree that this is a completely different issue. :) Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature