Re: One non-DD's thoughts on dfsg-freeness and firmware
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I realize that hardware includes non-free firmware in rom, but I think >that observation misses the point. Firmware in rom isn't being^M >distributed by the debian project. The first problem I see with debian The good old "what I don't see cannot hurt me" argument. >and non-free firmware is the question of provenance; where did it come >from? If it is extracted from a windows driver then legally it is a >potential landmine as it there is no permission even to distribute. This applies to *anything* we distribute. If you have serious reasons to believe that we are distributing something illegally then you are supposed to warn the maintainers responsible for it and/or the ftpmasters. If you don't, then please stop spreading FUD. >The second problem I see is that if it is part of main, the debian >project is claiming it is dfsg-free, which is most often not the case. Free is what we define to be free. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: special exception for firmware because of technical limitations
Le sam 26 août 2006 11:37, Josselin Mouette a écrit : > I propose the following amendment to Steve's proposal. > > > THE DEBIAN PROJECT therefore, > > > > 1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system > > to our users according to our Social Contract and the DFSG; and > > > > 2. encourages authors of all works to make those works > > available not only under licenses that permit modification, but > > also in forms that make such modifications practical; and > > > > 3. supports the decision of the Release Team to require > > works such as images, video, and fonts to be licensed in compliance > > with the DFSG without requiring source code for these works under > > DFSG #2; and > > 4. determines that as a special exception to DFSG #2, the source > code for device firmwares contained in the kernel packages will not > be required as long as there are no other technical means to install > and run the Debian system on these devices. I hereby second that amendment to steve's proposal -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpv1Y8koiQLH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: late for party (was Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware)
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [...] "de Raadt firmware" I have found: > http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/29/1098992287663.html > And http://kerneltrap.org/node/6550: Thanks. (Neither were in the OpenBSD list archives...) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
I think it is ludicrous to pretend that firmware is not a program. Suppose we had in our possession the source code and an assembler for it. Surely then it would be obviously a program. thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware > shall also not be considered a program. I am bothered that there is never a definition of "firmware" here. It seems to me that if you gave one, it would be something like: "firmware is a program which runs on a secondary CPU inside the computer." Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As you and I discussed previously on IRC, I don't agree with this amendment. > The premise of my proposal is that we are *not* granting an exception nor > redefining any terms, we are merely recognizing a latent definition of > "programs" that has guided Debian since its inception in spite of standing > in contrast to the dictionary definition of the word. In other words, Debian has been redefining the word from day one, dishonestly using the word "program" to mean something much narrower. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Notice that the bios or other firmware used on most machines today is also > refered as firmware. The original definition is, i believe, any kind of code > provided by the vendor of said device, and on which he has full control, so > firmware was non-free by definition originally. How does the vendor of a device have "full control" over what firmware I choose to load into it? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:26:42PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Notice that the bios or other firmware used on most machines today is also > > refered as firmware. The original definition is, i believe, any kind of code > > provided by the vendor of said device, and on which he has full control, so > > firmware was non-free by definition originally. > > How does the vendor of a device have "full control" over what firmware > I choose to load into it? Maybe bad phrasing. The idea is that the firmware is all the software and other softwarish information which the vendor provides to make use of the board he sells you. He has full control of it, in the sense that it is often binary only, and that he produces it, and not some third party (like the operating system vendor). Also, i believe that modifying the firmware, like you propose, usually voids the waranty. The main definition would be something like : all software support part that comes from the hardware vendor, to enable or drive or whatever the hardware he sells you, and which is not part of the operating system. Drivers don't fall in this category because it is part of the operating system, but the bios, and other such do. /me does firmware writing for living. I am also investigating going into hardware manufacturing, and preferably in hardware with full free firmware, but having to deal with the chip vendors, i can guarantee you that this is not an easy thing to do, especially for those wireless and bluetooth and whatever chips out there, where the primary market are cell phones, and even high volume pc markets are only a drop of water in comparison. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:23:10PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware > > shall also not be considered a program. > > I am bothered that there is never a definition of "firmware" here. It > seems to me that if you gave one, it would be something like: > "firmware is a program which runs on a secondary CPU inside the > computer." And that would be false, since the firmware was originally something refering to the bios or other enablement software for hardware boards. This is a definition present in terms like OpenFirmware (IEEE 1275), and also in various hardware manufacturer documentation, the x86 bios being an example of such firmware. In cases like hte NLSU thingy, the firmware goes to include the whole linux + userland stack on top of whatever they use for booting, since it is held in the flash of the board. I suppose that in the OneLaptopPerChild project, which holds a 512MB flash disk, the system will also be able to be labeled firmware, not sure if they will use this word. In this sense, the firmware uploaded to a wireless or bluetooth chip, most of them holding an arm core, is very similar to a uclinux or even fully fledged linux running on a cell phone or other embedded device. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In cases like hte NLSU thingy, the firmware goes to include the whole linux + > userland stack on top of whatever they use for booting, since it is held in > the flash of the board. Wow. I thought that "doesn't run on the main CPU" was entirely indefensible. It hadn't occurred to me that there is a definition which is even *worse*: "runs out of NVRAM instead of DRAM." Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The idea is that the firmware is all the software and other softwarish > information which the vendor provides to make use of the board he sells you. I see. If I buy a standard-issue Dell computer, then Windows is firmware, right? (Dell does provide it, for the purpose of making full use of the computer.) > He has full control of it, in the sense that it is often binary > only, and that he produces it, and not some third party (like the > operating system vendor). Also, i believe that modifying the > firmware, like you propose, usually voids the waranty. Oh, so because the OEM can't modify Windows it's not firmware. But if I buy a Dell PC that comes with Red Hat installed, it *is* something Dell can modify, so then it is firmware? > all software support part that comes from the hardware vendor, to enable or > drive or whatever the hardware he sells you, and which is not part of the > operating system. Um, this is not a definition. The whole point of a definition is to describe what is "firmware" and what is the "operating system". When I suggest that there is no good principled definition, you can't counter by definining firmware as essentially "whatever is not part of the operating system." Pretend I don't have any idea what this word "firmware" is or "operating system". I'm familiar with programming and all that, just not with these words. Can you explain the distinction in a noncircular way? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:21:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In cases like hte NLSU thingy, the firmware goes to include the whole linux > > + > > userland stack on top of whatever they use for booting, since it is held in > > the flash of the board. > > Wow. I thought that "doesn't run on the main CPU" was entirely > indefensible. It hadn't occurred to me that there is a definition > which is even *worse*: "runs out of NVRAM instead of DRAM." Nope, it could just as well be decompressed into RAM from the flash. Basically, it is all software (largest sense) which is provided by the hardware vendor, as board support software. Firm = Vendor for this. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:25:05PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The idea is that the firmware is all the software and other softwarish > > information which the vendor provides to make use of the board he sells you. > > I see. If I buy a standard-issue Dell computer, then Windows is > firmware, right? (Dell does provide it, for the purpose of making > full use of the computer.) The BIOS is, not windows, since it is coming from a third party, namely microsoft, and furthermore, the drivers are also not it. It depends. Like said, the NLSU considers all the linux+userland as firmware. > > He has full control of it, in the sense that it is often binary > > only, and that he produces it, and not some third party (like the > > operating system vendor). Also, i believe that modifying the > > firmware, like you propose, usually voids the waranty. > > Oh, so because the OEM can't modify Windows it's not firmware. But if > I buy a Dell PC that comes with Red Hat installed, it *is* something > Dell can modify, so then it is firmware? The firmware comes from the original hardware manufacturer, so not dell, but whoever builds boards for dell. That is the link, it is the same guys who do the hardware, and provide the most basic support, often as closed source, to the OEM or whoever else may use it. > > all software support part that comes from the hardware vendor, to enable > > or > > drive or whatever the hardware he sells you, and which is not part of the > > operating system. > > Um, this is not a definition. The whole point of a definition is to > describe what is "firmware" and what is the "operating system". When > I suggest that there is no good principled definition, you can't > counter by definining firmware as essentially "whatever is not part of > the operating system." :) > Pretend I don't have any idea what this word "firmware" is or > "operating system". I'm familiar with programming and all that, just > not with these words. Can you explain the distinction in a > noncircular way? Like said, it is all the hardware enablement software that is provided by the original hardware manufacturer as part of the hardware bundle. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I think it is ludicrous to pretend that firmware is not a program. I am not sure, it's not very funny to me. But it worked pretty well until you and a few other people started pretending we have been confused for all these years and actually meant something else. >Suppose we had in our possession the source code and an assembler for >it. Surely then it would be obviously a program. So what? -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
Nathanael Nerode writes: > If you want to amend the DFSG to state > > "3. Source Code > The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source > code as well as compiled form. However, this requirement does not apply to > firmware, defined as ." > > I would strongly oppose such a change, but it would be a legitimate, > reasonable GR (requiring 3:1 supermajority of course). Recent history -- in particular, GR 2006-001's winning option -- suggests that broad DFSG exemptions, when treated as clarifications or interpretations of the project, are not necessarily so clear-cut about requiring a 3:1 supermajority. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 10:02:35PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Recent history -- in particular, GR 2006-001's winning option --
> suggests that broad DFSG exemptions, when treated as clarifications or
> interpretations of the project, are not necessarily so clear-cut about
> requiring a 3:1 supermajority.
Note that the winning option of that GR ("GFDL-licensed works without
unmodifiable sections are free") did in fact achieve a 3:1 supermajority,
even though it was not required to.
For comparison, the other options did not achieve a 3:1 supermajority. The
first option, "GFDL-licensed works are unsuitable for main in all cases",
came close to, but didn't achieve a 2:1 supermajority, while the third
option, "GFDL-licensed works are compatible with the DFSG", didn't
achieve a simple majority, let alone the 3:1 supermajority required of it.
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: late for party (was Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware)
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 11:42:19AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > >> > I think we should learn from OpenBSD on this front. > >> I agree. Indeed, the OpenBSD project not only distributes > >> sourceless firmwares, but also sourceless firmwares with a > >> license which forbids modifications and reverse engineering. > >Care to back up that statement? It runs 180 degrees counter > >to my understanding of OpenBSD. > Feel free to dig in the OpenBSD mailing lists archives if you care. OpenBSD does ship sourceless firmware, but: 1. They do not ship firmware forbidding redistribution or modification. See the *-license files in the subdirectories of http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/. On the other hand, for example, they do *not* ship the IPW firmware because Intel refuses to permit redistribution rights (take a look at their ipw(4), iwi(4), or wpi(4) man pages: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=ipw#FILES). 2. They don't pretend it's a non-issue by hiding their heads in the ``firmware-isn't-actually-software'' sandbox. They make it clear this is a necessary compromise... kinda like how Debian defends its non-free section. If Debian wants to do similarly, go ahead. Just don't lie about what you're doing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:18:04 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: >> 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device >>firmware shall also not be considered a program. > > This would require us to amend the foundation document of the > DFSG, and define that what Debian defines as software program > is different from the common definitions of the term > > In order for us to have a meaninglul foundation document, we > can't debate and use our own "special" definitions of common terms, > since the definition in turn uses words that can be "defined" in a > "special" fashion. > > So, unless otherwise stated, the foundation document terms > refer to commonly understood meanings of words; looking to > dictionaries, encyclopedias, and common references. > > Calling firmware not programs is our own "special" definition > of firmware, and or program, and hence must be defined explicitly in > the DFSG. If we want to state that we only consider certain programs > to be free, we ought to be upfront and clear about it in our > foundation document. 110% in agreement with Manoj. Q: How many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg? A: Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one. (Attributed to Abraham Lincoln.) I fail to see any way in which an executable MIPS binary is not a "program", by any definition. If you want to amend the DFSG to state "3. Source Code The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. However, this requirement does not apply to firmware, defined as ." I would strongly oppose such a change, but it would be a legitimate, reasonable GR (requiring 3:1 supermajority of course). In contrast, clause 4 of Steve Langasek's proposal is a backhanded and not very forthright way of trying to change the DFSG without changing them. Steve, you're better than this: please fix your proposal to do the straightforward thing. > > manoj -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: special exception for firmware because of technical limitations
Hi, > I propose the following amendment to Steve's proposal. > > > THE DEBIAN PROJECT therefore, > > > > 1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to our > > users according to our Social Contract and the DFSG; and > > > > 2. encourages authors of all works to make those works available not > > only under licenses that permit modification, but also in forms that make > > such modifications practical; and > > > > 3. supports the decision of the Release Team to require works such > > as > > images, video, and fonts to be licensed in compliance with the DFSG without > > requiring source code for these works under DFSG #2; and > > 4. determines that as a special exception to DFSG #2, the source code > for device firmwares contained in the kernel packages will not be > required as long as there are no other technical means to install and > run the Debian system on these devices. I hereby second this amendment. Regards, -- Clément Stenac signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
