On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:07:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:44PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the
opposite is true. I design hardware (FPGAs) professionally for expensive
communications
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 12:13:32AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 10:07:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
Speaking as someone with experience of the software rather than hardware
side of this I'd call FPGA images hardware. From the point of view of
working with it it looks
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:44:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
I think the key distinction (as far as I'm concerned) is that Debian
isn't producing a distribution for the microcontroller in my
fibrechannel
MJ Ray wrote:
I think the idea that refusing to ship non-free firmware in main will
strengthen demand for free firmware is worthy of consideration. Debian
helps users to take control of their operating system. Increasing the
demand for free firmware might also help users to take control of
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are giving a promise here, that with the stuff in our distribution
you have the freedom to use it, to give it to others and to fix it.
This means the missing of legal obstacles and the possibility to do so.
For this
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 08:03:39PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
Within a Debian context people normally seem to use the term firmware
to mean any binary blob that gets programmed into hardware. This could
include things like register settings or FPGA images as well as programs
to execute on
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:44PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the
opposite is true. I design hardware (FPGAs) professionally for expensive
communications equipment. We avoid ROMs as much as possible, because
they are
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If it's the latter, I maintain that this is precisely the subject matter of
the proposed GR; we obviously *don't* have agreement in Debian over what
should or should not be considered a program, so I think that's begging
the question.
However, your
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:07:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:44PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the
opposite is true. I design hardware (FPGAs) professionally for expensive
communications
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 10:07:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:07:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:44PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the
opposite is true. I design
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:18:04 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
snip
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
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 insert your pet exemption here.
I
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
Joe Smith wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The middle one's the one of interest, it's expressed in the first point
of the social contract as:
We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
component.
(For reference,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Indeed, all the references I have found tell me that firmware
is computer programs.
Interesting, as I note that *none* of those you quoted do so -- although
some do say that it is software that is stored in less-volatile
storage than RAM.
Given the scale
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:28:35AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Steve Langasek]
That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see this
being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a ROM
wouldn't
[Matthew Garrett]
The biggest area which is likely to bite us is with network cards,
though we'll probably lose some degree of SCSI support as well.
Fortunately, at least with SCSI, users have a choice. They can buy
Adaptec or LSI 53c* and they get _truly free_ firmware (in the case of
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:30:23AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
he doesn't use the leader@ address even on issues related to his DPL role, as
i well know, so this is no guarantee.
AFAICT, he always signs those mails with DPL in the signature. Plus, at
least in this thread, he did use [EMAIL
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:23:20 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
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
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:08:08 -0600, Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj wrote:
Actually, I disagree, and, even worse, so does the common
definition of the phrase computer program: asking google about
define: computer program gives: , | * A computer program is a
set of
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The middle one's the one of interest, it's expressed in the first point
of the social contract as:
We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
component.
[Steve Langasek]
That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see this
being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a ROM
wouldn't also be?
The day Debian begins to distribute ROM chips, or devices containing
ROM chips, I will expect those chips to come with source
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:28:35AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Steve Langasek]
That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see this
being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a ROM
wouldn't also be?
The day Debian begins to distribute ROM chips, or devices
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:28:35AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Steve Langasek]
That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see this
being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a ROM
wouldn't
Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 17:38 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
further response to TS checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
and his expectations shouldn't be inferred to be those of the developers
as a whole.
And
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
further response to TS checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
and his expectations shouldn't be inferred to be those of the developers
as a whole.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:28:35AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Steve Langasek]
That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see this
being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a ROM
wouldn't
Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 19:19 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
If you believe a comment on a list has no merit, it's very easy to deal
with it: just ignore it, and go on discussing the ideas that are worth
discussing.
Why would I do that, when you are taking the opposite way? When you
believe
Why would I do that, when you are taking the opposite way? When you
believe a commend on a list has no merit, you explicitly ask other
people to ignore it, based on a stupid DD/non-DD segregation instead of
the merits of the comment.
This is not my understanding of aj's comment, Josselin. He
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 07:19:24PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
further response to TS checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
and his expectations
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:16:22PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
Why would I do that, when you are taking the opposite way? When you
believe a commend on a list has no merit, you explicitly ask other
people to ignore it, based on a stupid DD/non-DD segregation instead of
the merits of
No, but he blamed Peter for participating in the conversation because he was
That's not my understanding of aj's post. From my point of view, he
did not blame Peter. He didn't even address him directly.
Maybe it is not best for us non-english speaker to comment on the content of
aj's post,
Le mer 23 août 2006 12:16, Christian Perrier a écrit :
Why would I do that, when you are taking the opposite way? When you
believe a commend on a list has no merit, you explicitly ask other
people to ignore it, based on a stupid DD/non-DD segregation
instead of the merits of the comment.
reminder was, is rude and inappropriate. That's not the first tham that
aj does such reminders[1], and especiall beeing the DPL[2], I find that
disturbing.
Well, even being the DPL, aj is perfectly allowed to have personal
opinions, even some that you (or me) may find irrelevant or wrong.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:40:11PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
No, but he blamed Peter for participating in the conversation because he was
That's not my understanding of aj's post. From my point of view, he
did not blame Peter. He didn't even address him directly.
well, its the end
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, the only one who could claim that his views have some representativity
of the project as a whole is you, everyone else is just expressing his own
opinion, be he a DD or a guy from NM or some random poster.
Anyone can claim
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:03:17PM +0200, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
further response to TS checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
and his expectations
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:38:07 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:28:35AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Steve Langasek]
That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see
this being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:23:29 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 06:19:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:18:04 -0700, Steve Langasek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi folks, Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has
been:
* Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060823 15:46]:
Certainly, it's one of the purposes. But I don't think we've *lost*
anything by distributing binary firmware. Consider the cases:
1. Everything in hardware. You're not able to fix anything without a
soldering iron ... and good luck to
Manoj wrote:
Actually, I disagree, and, even worse, so does the common
definition of the phrase computer program: asking google about
define: computer program gives:
,
| * A computer program is a set of statements or instructions to be
| used directly or indirectly in a
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:24:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, the only one who could claim that his views have some representativity
of the project as a whole is you, everyone else is just expressing his own
opinion, be he
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:11:39PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is freedom of software only important for the central
processing unit, but immaterial for other processing usints?
Who said it's not important? I believe it is, just that it's not a
battle
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
Manoj wrote:
Actually, I disagree, and, even worse, so does the common
definition of the phrase computer program: asking google about
define: computer program gives:
,
| * A computer program is a set of statements
On Aug 23, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, but would it not make more sense, to aknowledge that the firmware is
non-free, and then argue that we should include it nonetheless, instead of
making obviously false claims like firmware are not programs ?
Firmwares are not programs *for
In linux.debian.vote Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:24:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, the only one who could claim that his views have some
representativity
of the project as a whole is
El miércoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 21:24:16 +1000, Anthony Towns escribía:
We choose to apply the DFSG both to the components that the Debian system
requires, and to what we use to provide debian.org services. It can be
No, the DFSG are applied to what's provided by Debian, not to what
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 07:14:03AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:44:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
I think the key distinction (as far as I'm concerned) is that Debian
isn't producing a distribution
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:00:07PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
In linux.debian.vote Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:24:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, the only one who could claim that his
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:44:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
I think the key distinction (as far as I'm concerned) is that Debian
isn't producing a distribution for the microcontroller in my
fibrechannel card, it's producing a
Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
El miércoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 21:24:16 +1000, Anthony Towns
escribía:
We choose to apply the DFSG both to the components that the Debian system
requires, and to what we use to provide debian.org services. It can be
No, the DFSG are
El miércoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 14:59:37 +0100, Matthew Garrett
escribía:
No, the DFSG are applied to what's provided by Debian, not to what it's
required by it.
The DFSG apply to The Debian system. The social contract doesn't
define what The Debian system is. We could define it
Followups set to -vote; why are we cc'ing this across multiple lists?
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:01:52PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
El mi?rcoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 21:24:16 +1000, Anthony Towns
escrib?a:
We choose to apply the DFSG both to the components that the Debian system
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are giving a promise here, that with the stuff in our distribution
you have the freedom to use it, to give it to others and to fix it.
This means the missing of legal obstacles and the possibility to do so.
For this discussion preferred form of
* Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060823 16:40]:
We are giving a promise here, that with the stuff in our distribution
you have the freedom to use it, to give it to others and to fix it.
This means the missing of legal obstacles and the possibility to do so.
For this discussion
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:40:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are giving a promise here, that with the stuff in our distribution
you have the freedom to use it, to give it to others and to fix it.
This means the missing of legal obstacles
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:18:03PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
OK, never saw that drives. But where is the problem with them. Works
without needing any non-free stuff being put in the operating systems
and people might be able to replace it. No good example.
Wait. So by Non-free stuff
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not true in either direction. Not every non-free application has
a free counterpart[1]. And not every hardware needs firmware.
If you can find a single hard drive on the market that doesn't contain
some sort of firmware, I'll be greatly
* Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060823 17:31]:
If you can find a single hard drive on the market that doesn't contain
some sort of firmware, I'll be greatly impressed. Or, for that matter, a
vaguely modern processor. Let alone bootstrapping a system (LinuxBIOS
will suffice for a very
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think it's reasonable to refuse to ship non-free code when there's
actually a choice or when it's likely to provide an incentive to
implement a free version. But right now, I don't see any evidence that
refusing to ship non-free firmware will do anything
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 07:25:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think it's reasonable to refuse to ship non-free code when there's
actually a choice or when it's likely to provide an incentive to
implement a free version. But right now, I don't see any evidence
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:18:04 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi folks, Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has
been: what do the DFSG require for works that are not programs as
previously understood in Debian? Several rounds of general
resolutions have now given
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 06:19:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:18:04 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi folks, Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has
been: what do the DFSG require for works that are not programs as
previously
63 matches
Mail list logo
