jeff wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:
If I get Alex correctly he is saying that, to his goal, which is 100%
Free software everywhere (including in his toothbrush), this is
counterproductive, as it may make it easier to distribute binary
firmware along with the kernel, as it now could be put in a seperate
tarbal removing GPL worries etc.
As much as I admire Alex's goal's I'm very glad with the current
pragmatic approach Fedora has taken with regards to firmware.
And when combining both these perspectives, David, you patch is
excellent and I'm very gratefull for all the work you've been doing on
it.
If the firmware truely gets put in a different tarbal (and thus
eventually in a different srpm), then it will be feasible to do a no
blobs included Fedora spin like gnewsense, which would be great.
If you have to do a *SEPARATE* spin to do a free CD, why does the Fedora
project spew crap like this everywhere:
"We try to always do the right thing, and provide only free and open source
software." [1]
It's simply not true and the author of that (Rahul Sundaram I think--he
writes it everywhere else too), *MUST* know that isn't true. It's one
thing if the non-free software that fedora shipped was considered a bug
that just hasn't been eradicated but shipping non-free software is
fedora *policy*.[1]
It's one thing to include some firmware, call a program GPL when it's
not, ship non-free binaries etc., but at least don't lie about it on all
your literature. Sheez.
It depends on your definition of software, according to Fedora's definitions
firmware is not software it is content. I know this is a word game, but think
about it, what is the definition of software?
Are the bits included in a serial eeprom, which on powerup get read by an fpga,
to make that fpga become a specific bit of hardware soft or hardware, what
about the vhdl / verilog sources from which those bits were generated. What
about a cpld, is that a processor running software or is it hardware? But it is
coded in the same verilog / vhdl, which both are very much programming
language-ish.
What about a pcb, nowaday its fully automatic generated (compiled as you which)
from instructions which take the form of a bunch of bits.
Really you everything must be free people need to:
1) get a couple of years experience in electronics engineering and start to
realize how deep down programmable hardware is going these days. Most
hardware won't do anything without atleast having put the proper bits in a
cpld somewhere.
2) Then stop making this weird difference between firmware which is in a
rom shipped with the device, and firmware which is on a cd shipped with the
device, what if the rom is on a socket and can be removed without soldering?
3) When you stop making the weird difference between different firmware
distribution mechanisms, either realise that firmware is part of the
hardware, or keep calling firmware software and demand that it is _all_
free, so also remove any drivers for hardware where the firmware is shipped
with the hardware instead of with the OS, such as any motherboards which
come with a non free BIOS, any CPU's which use microcode, etc. Good luck
with that.
Really, arguing that Fedora's stance is inconsistent, while in reality yours is
doesn't gain you much respect. Either:
1) all firmware is software and must be free in which case support for evil
hardware which comes with the firmware embedded must be removed from linux-libre!
2) all firmware is considered part of the hardware, independend of the
distribution mechanism of that firmware (the Fedora pov).
Regards,
Hans
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
