Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change
Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 10:17:16PM +0200, Tobias Frost a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:10:24PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:37:49PM +0000, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > > Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> > > > Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored in
> > > > your hardware is better than having it loaded from your OS?
> > >
> > > My position is that the laws governing embedded firmware are much
> > > more favorable to the users than the laws governing freestanding
> > > firmware.
> >
> > To gives a random example: firmware-iwlwifi
> > (by the way the link in packages.d.o to the copyright file does not work
> > https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//non-free/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-nonfree_20210315-3_copyright
> > return 404
> > )
> >
> > * No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this software
> > is permitted.
> > FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED
> >
> > You cannot disclaim warranty on hardware. You have to provide statutory
> > warranty.
>
> You can't disclaim statutory warranty, regardless if its hardware or software.
>
> However, you can write a lot of sentences in your licenses, even some sentences
> which are legally ineffective…
>
> Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice, but my oppinion.
I am not a lawyer either, but Intel _does_ have lawyers that drafted
this that way, and they know exactly what advantage they can get from
it.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: