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
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:
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