Re: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?

2006-10-04 Thread ldoolitt
Frank - > the ftpmasters and many others want to give those drives the > benefit of doubt and assume that they aren't sourceless, but are, e.g., > just dumps of unnamed registers and therefore "the preferred form for > modification". After all, they were what was given to the kernel people > when

"do not modify" blobs

2006-10-03 Thread ldoolitt
Manoj - >Has anyone done a survey to see how many "do not modify" blobs >we are talking about here? Not counting files already removed in 2.6.17, drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ffdrv.h use-only (2) drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ltdrv.h use-only (2) drivers/net/tg3.cr

Re: Proposal - Defer discussion about SC and firmware until after the Etchrelease

2006-09-11 Thread ldoolitt
Thank you, Frans, for your thoughtful and informative post. I have a couple of questions/comments. > implementation of a solution for firmware/non-free drivers in d-i has > been discussed but consensus was that there was not much point in > working on it while there was no separation in the kernel

Re: kernel firmwares: GR proposal

2006-09-11 Thread ldoolitt
Steve wrote: > So if we are going to make an exception, I think we should take care to > make the smallest exception necessary. I hope everyone here can agree with that. > If we don't *need* to grant exceptions > for firmware based on their license, only on whether or not they include > source,

Re: Firmware & Social Contract: GR proposal

2006-09-06 Thread ldoolitt
Sven wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:35:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2100_fw.c > > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2200_fw.c > > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2300_fw.c > > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2322_fw.c > > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2400_fw.c > > Are those

Re: kernel firmwares: GR proposal

2006-08-31 Thread ldoolitt
Sven wrote - >I already did so, but let's try again : >We consider for the purpose of this GR, firmware to be : > [blah blah] Hey, let's make it easy: let's approve shipping the same firmware we shipped in sarge! I can list the 45 files covered, so there's no ambiguity, no regression in hardware

Re: late for party (was Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware)

2006-08-27 Thread ldoolitt
Kurt Roeckx wrote in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/08/msg00205.htm > I'm not sure about those 46 that already use request_firmware() I see no reason to take them out. I listed them as a measure of success, at least with recently added drivers. > It would be interestig to know if any o

late for party (was Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware)

2006-08-24 Thread ldoolitt
Hi - Sorry I'm late for the party. I'm on travel, with less than ideal 'net connections. Reading 147 messages on d-v over a hotel's erratic wireless link was not fun. Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/08/msg00117.html > None of the trolls demanding the removal