> There's a fundamental ethical difference that I've already explained > but you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge, let alone understand. > This is where I stop taking part in arguing this point with you. I think we disagree because I'm looking at the whole systems question of how to get Linux and free software to work (and I think that is why the FSF was pragmatic about its licencing too) > 1. Free Software for non-Free interpreters is acceptable: someone could > create a Free interpreter and then anyone could use both in freedom. So you don't oppose us shipping microcode updates then ? > 2. because without the exclusion it would have been impossible to > distribute these Free programs in binary form in the first place, > before some completely Free operating system started. And then, > there's always a possibility that someone writes a drop-in replacement > library that would enable the binary to be used in freedom. #2 is my argument for the firmware essentially - and I'm definitely in favour of it being a separate package to the kernel so people know which is which. There are still hard cases where the microcode/firmware really is just hex or tables. Alan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
