[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware

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. :)

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

Reply to: