Re: late for party (was Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware)
>My understanding is that upstream has not been entirely receptive
>to patches that remove non-free firmware from it. Maybe that's
>because they don't have an established firmware-nonfree project
>(like Debian does) into which to move that firmware?
No, it's because they really do not believe this to be a problem, like
everybody else but a few people polluting debian-legal.
>A consensus of DD that "firmware is not software" carries no
>legal weight. 44 of the sourceless-firmware-contaminated
>files in the Linux kernel are claimed to be covered by the GPL.
>There is no legal way for Debian to redistribute those files,
>since we can't provide that source to people who attempt to
>exercise their GPL-mandated rights.
Other distributions disagree, and they have actual lawyers who are
payed to care about such things.
>> > I think we should learn from OpenBSD on this front.
>> I agree. Indeed, the OpenBSD project not only distributes
>> sourceless firmwares, but also sourceless firmwares with a
>> license which forbids modifications and reverse engineering.
>Care to back up that statement? It runs 180 degrees counter
>to my understanding of OpenBSD.
Feel free to dig in the OpenBSD mailing lists archives if you care.