I'm not trolling, just actually really curious about this one. AMD's amdgpu
kernel driver is considered an "open source" version of their driver, and
many improvements are in store for the 4.7 kernel like Polaris support.
According to the Linux Libre kernel, it is considered non-free and ther
"it requires non-free code (additional firmware or a key or whatever) from
the vendor in order to work?"
Yep. If you do a diff of Linux and Linux-libre you can see the actual
changes. One of them below. Goodbye binary firmware!
/* Firmware Names */
-#define FIRMWARE_TONGA "amdgpu/t
I've always wondered how Linus and the kernel team could get away from
inserting closed off and non-free bits into a GPL kernel, which should make
everything free due to the nature of the GPL. Does binary firmware somehow
get a free pass because it's firmware and not traditional software?
It's the creator of the software (or, more precisely, the owner of the
copyright) that gets to enforce the license, not the users. And a copyright
license isn't automatically enforced; the owner of the "rights" has to sue
the infringer. Additionally, that rights-holder can't infringe his own
Officially, the firmware blobs are not distributed with the kernel (they are
hosted in the "unofficial" linux-firmware git repository), so the source code
on its own is free. I've seen people on Phoronix make this rather weak
argument.
It isn't just firmware though, it's various binary files
If the driver is using a firmware blob that does something trivial (for
example some touchscreens load a file that defines the dimensions of the
screen), then that is probably not a derivative, and you can make the
argument that it just about complies with the GPL.
It gets more dubious when t
As an extra note: if you go to the Linux kernel project's official
website and click on the big button to download the source, you'll get
a .tar.gz with various directories, one of which is "firmware", and this
one has the blobs.
So, they still distribute the non-free parts.
signature.asc
Descri
