On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 12:14:10PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > 2) there are now drivers which contains non-free firmware blobs, with > > explicit licence, and these are thus distributable. A quick search for > > fw_ revealed 159 such files in 2.6.15. > > I would like to add that I have volunteered to > (a) assist with converting these to the request_firmware infrastructure > (b) package the blobs for 'non-free'. Udebs provided on request. > > I actually *did* this for tg3 (back when the firmware was undistributable, > but before I'd noticed that). However, all my work so far has been > rejected by upstream for reasons which I can only call pure hostility (I > have seen few technical reasons, and have received no response to requests > regarding what would be an acceptable patch). The corresponding patches > have been removed from the Debian kernel because the kernel maintainers at > the time did not want to maintain patches relative to upstream. This does > not exactly encourage me to work on other drivers. I have since misplaced > my tg3 work, and would have to retrieve it from an old Debian kernel > package. Help doing so would be appreciated :-)
Well, i hear the tg3 upstream was not at all happy about this request_firmware, but this doesn't mean other drivers upstream will not be sympathic to such a patch, and the situation changed upstream i believe. Also, the debian kernel team situation may be different if we decide to go this way. > > d) we go for a new GR, asking for an exception for the linux kernel, in > > order to still stay in main, even though the firmware is non-free, > > arguing that said firmware is more akin to hardware, since it replaces > > firmware on a prom or flash on the expansion card, and you thus lose no > > freedom if we distribute it, and the pain the other solutions will cause > > to ourselves and our users. > If my DD application ever goes through, I would definitely vote against > this, because the argument is completely bogus. For an similar argument, > "An implementation of BASIC is more akin to hardware, because it replaces > IBM BASIC which used to be kept in ROM". This argument might wash if the > "firmware" was not code at all, but in the cases I know of, the "firmware" > is in fact code for MIPS, ARM, and other ordinary CPUs which are on the > expansion card. Well, the difference is that we can live without a basic implementation, while living without the kernel is more problematic :) It would be a kind of pragmatic decision, and in line with the "user & freedom" part of the social contract. > > Ok, i believe this summarizes the discussion of this evening, a log of the > > irc discussion can be found at : > > > > http://people.debian.org/~fs/firmware-irc-log.html > > You should have invited me, you know. :-) Well, we are now discussing things, there was only a small subset of the kernel team there anyway, maybe it was best so, it was already tense enough like that :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]