On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 05:49:47PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Let's say i have a wireless chip, which includes a pci interface which can > > be > > either host or device, a wireless interface to some antenas, an arm core, > > some > > ram and flash. > > > > [explanations snipped] > > > > This is not a 100% real example, since i am not aware of a wireless chip > > with > > a real pci interface, they usually come with some gpios, usb, or some kind > > of > > serial interface, .... > > and below: > > > Other examples are SATA or SCSI HW RAID device, like the AMCC/3WARE one, > > which > > include a IO-processor which is in turn a powerpc 40x or 44x based core, > > which > > you could turn into a standalone device all by itself. Or other HW RAID card > > which use some kind of service processor from intel. > > I'm not sure if its clear, but I think this discussion is about device > firmware for hardware which (given existance) can be used in multiple > operational modes. Honestly, I find this rather hypothetic (maybe quite > academic) and I don't feel that this is what Steve is talking > about. Perhaps to wording can be fixed for that.
Well, i am dealing with a wireless chip that can be used in a similar case right now, thus the example, and like said, the wireless situation is way worse than the disk controller or ethernet driver one. > The 2nd example you give is a bit different and hits way better what > Steve had in mind: These peripherials (well, better controllers for > peripherials but I don't think this matters here) are using non-free > software (device firmware) which is in turn used by free software, like > a debian operating system. I don't think that anyone here seriously > doesn't consider this as what we commongly call ``program''. The I wouldn't bet on this. The amount of : "firmware are just data" claims in this issue is rather important. > relevant part is this: > > >> 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device > >> firmware shall also not be considered a program. > > I as non native speaker understand that as this: "We of course consider > device firmware as programs in general. It is just that for some > hardware devices, additional non-free software is needed so that our > free software (both applications and device drivers) can be used on this > kind of hardware. As we want to serve both of our users and spreading > beautiful and usable free software, for some cases [1] we accept that > our free software is using some non-free programs on our > (peripherial/controlling) devices. For these hardware devices, we > support our users and the free software movement by providing them the > needed ``device firmware''. We therefore make the clarification that for > the purposes of DFSG #2 we special case ``device firmware'' so that for > this specific issue, ``device firmware'' is not considered as a > program." Yeah, but then way not say it clearly, and say that we will make an DFSG exception for firmware, independently of them being programs or not. > There are some variations on this which set a limit "until we have > better infrastructure to separate non-free ``device firmware'' from the > kernel and the installer. > > Please note that I'm not really decided on this matter. This mail may > sound biased. If it is, I'm sorry. I really don't know yet what I would > vote (if I was allowed to vote, of course). In fact, I'd love to see > some better rationale for the quoted point (#4) of the proposed amendment. I think the rationale behind it is : We want to keep the firmware in main, so we say they are not program. > [1] the case that there we don't have free access to the sources of the > ``device firmware'' Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]