Re: calling firmware code data is not being honest with ourselves, includes counterproposal and RFC on a possible Amendment

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 02:22:36PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le jeu 24 août 2006 14:08, Sven Luther a écrit :
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 11:48:56AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > The only way you can argue this is by not understanding the
> > > proposed GR: a boot sector is not firmware since it's loaded from a
> > > disk to run on the same CPU which will later run the OS.
> > >
> > > (Not that I would have any objections to shipping it in main, since
> > > this would help and not hinder the cause of free software.)
> >
> > I understand perfectly well the purpose of this GR. It is to say that
> > we should accept non-free firmware in main, without saying clearly
> > they are often binaries obtained from some sort of source.
> 
> my understanding is that it's about accepting blobs that are sourceless 
> and "licensed" under a DFSG-free license as acceptable for main.
> 
> which is rather different, and completely disallow random firmware to go 
> in main:
>  * if there is a source, the source must be DFSG free ;
>  * if there is no source, and that the firmware cannot be modified e.g.
>    => non free;
>  * if there is no source, but that the blob is modifiable,
>    redistribuable, ... then we tolerate it in main.
> 
> It's very far from the apocaliptic scenario you are depicting.

The main problem with this, is what you mean by sourceless, and the current
definition is "we don't have the source for it".

Some of these blobs are clearly identified as havinga source somewhere, and
thus the DFSG mandates that we need to have that source. Saying " we say they
are not programs", and thus use this as an excuse to accept them even though
they have no source is what is at hand here.

All of those firmware blobs do have source usually, just not something we can
get hands on.

Friendly,

Sven Luther