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

Re: late for party (was Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware)



On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 11:42:19AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >> >  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.

OpenBSD does ship sourceless firmware, but:

    1. They do not ship firmware forbidding redistribution or
       modification.  See the *-license files in the subdirectories of
       http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/.
       On the other hand, for example, they do *not* ship the IPW
       firmware because Intel refuses to permit redistribution rights
       (take a look at their ipw(4), iwi(4), or wpi(4) man pages:
       http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=ipw#FILES).

    2. They don't pretend it's a non-issue by hiding their heads in
       the ``firmware-isn't-actually-software'' sandbox.  They make it
       clear this is a necessary compromise... kinda like how Debian
       defends its non-free section.

If Debian wants to do similarly, go ahead.  Just don't lie about what
you're doing.



Reply to: