Re: call for seconds: on firmware
Peter Palfrader <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I'm hereby proposing the following general resolution:
> | Firmware is data such as microcode or lookup tables that is loaded
> | into hardware components in order to make the component function
> | properly. It is not code that is run on the host CPU.
> | Unfortunately such firmware often is distributed as so-called
> | 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 properties
“not code that is 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?
\ “To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make |
`\ you something else is the greatest accomplishment.” —Ralph |
_o__) Waldo Emerson |