On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 02:54:07PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > license or by copyright law. As I stated before, it's a moral, > ethical and social issue, even if it's also a negligible legal issue. It is an interface between two systems. Consider a typical PC system You can load the CPU firmware updates by - Having the BIOS load it - Having the kernel load it - Having user space apps load it That block could be - residing at an address in ROM - residing at an address in RAM used by the BIOS - residing at an address attached to the kernel image - residing at an address attached to the initrd image Thats the sole difference - the address it appears at. Exactly why does the address in RAM change the "morality" of the distribution. Or would you like try equivocating around "good PC bad Linux" v "Good Linux Bad PC" depending who distributes which bit. Do you buy an "evil" widget with ROM binary firmware or a "good" widget with no proprietary code included that needs an "evil" OS product ? We are *not* talking about two tightly bound pieces of code here but general interfaces. The moment you've got a driver and firmware very closely tied together and sharing structure to the point they were clearly written and designed as one thing its a bit different yes. You also complain about the attitude of the kernel developers - well generally speaking we happened to write the code in question.... Alan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
