On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:19:07PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > Still not reasonable for Fedora, I think. Red Hat, and RHEL, can > manage registered licensing to build this binary blob. But binary > blobs with no tool chain to build htem? So it's okay to ship opaque-but-redistributable binary blobs that don't run on the host CPU (aka device firmware) without any source code (much less a toolchain that can build it), but shipping something that comes with fully redistributable (if not outright Free) source code is bad because there's no Free toolchain to compile it? That doesn't make sense. I'm just trying to understand how FPGA "firmware" is any different than regular device firmware, and how having source code code available suddenly turns something from okay to include into something we can't. - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org Delray Beach, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
