Re: kernel firmwares: GR proposal
Sven Luther <email@example.com> writes:
>> Microcode for the main processor does not match (2) or (3). So no,
>> there is no obvious likeness between microcode for the main processor
>> and the "rest of the stuff".
> Microcode does run in a lower level of the cpu than the main code, as thus you
> could see it as a program (actually a set of small programs probably), which
> are uploaded to the main cpu in order to make it work as expected.
Of course it's a program uploaded to the main cpu to work as
expected. Do you think that this definition fits your description as
being on a peripheral processor and part of a device driver??
Are you now saying that anything uploaded to the main cpu should be
excluded from the DFSG? Wow.
> So, please come up with an actual case of the above definition not being
> enough for classification, and once you find something such, we will adapt the
> definition to clarify its classification.
"Debian will remain 100% Free Software" is the classification I like.
I am of the opinion that there *is no* principled classification
beyond this one which is anything other than "we don't really want
100% Free Software".