Hi, "C. Bergstr?m" p??e v P? 15. 05. 2009 v 15:13 +0300: > James C. McPherson wrote: > > On Fri, 15 May 2009 14:47:27 +0300 > > "C. Bergstr?m" <codestr0m at osunix.org> wrote: > > > > > >> I'm auditing the source and found a couple closed binaries.. I say > >> closed binaries because of the wording with the corresponding license > >> for each. I'm not sure how this could be fixed, but maybe it's best > >> these be moved to the closed binaries download in the future. > >> > >> usr/src/uts/common/io/usb/clients/hwa1480_fw/i1480/i1480-usb-0.0.bin > >> usr/src/cmd/ucodeadm/amd-ucode.bin > >> > > > > What exactly are you objecting to in the licensing? > > > This isn't a license objection.. More just that it doesn't seem > appropriate to be in the source tree. It's not source and putting it > there is misleading imho.. You've pointed out a few more that I haven't > found yet.. Knowing all of these would be helpful. > > Thanks >
Will it make you more happy if it will be embedded as huge char array in file with c extension? Clearly, all these are: a) microcodes for CPUs b) firmwares for some devices All comming from device developers. And device driver writers have several different possibilities how to include them to their drivers. Many of them prefers to have them in separate files, to simplify manipulation. Look at them like on images (e.g. PNG files). What is the benefit to separate them from source tree? Best regards, Milan
