Re: on firmware (possible proposal)
Peter Palfrader <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I'm considering formally proposing this GR (option):
> | Firmware is data that is uploaded to hardware components, not
> | designed to be run on the host CPU. Often this firmware is already
> | required at install time in order to use network or storage
> | devices.
> | Unfortunately such firmware often is distributed as BLOBs, with no
> | source or further documentation that lets us learn how it works or
> | interacts with the hardware in question. By excluding such
> | firmware from Debian we exclude users that require such devices
> | from installing our operating system, or make it unnecessarily
> | hard for them.
> | Therefore […]
This gives no argument for why such bitstreams should be held to
different standards of freedom for its recipients. The property “not
designed to be run on the host CPU” is mentioned, but seems to be
irrelevant to the argument.
Can you re-write this so it's clear why this particular class of
bitstream should not be held to the same freedom standards as
everything else in Debian?
\ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “Well, I think |
`\ so, Brain, but I can't memorize a whole opera in Yiddish.” |
_o__) —_Pinky and The Brain_ |