On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Arthur Pemberton wrote: >> >> 2008/9/19 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 08:58 -0400, jude ui wrote: >>>> >>>> And to repharse my question - Can't you guys reselse the firmware as >>>> opensource - are they prosperity drivers? (correct me if I'm wrong) >>> >>> The firmware is not Fedora's to release. The hardware vendor releases it >>> as a binary blob due to at least one of 3 concerns: >>> >>> 1) Regulatory issues >>> >>> Hardware vendors need to prevent end-users from modifying the firmware >>> so that the hardware can not be driven outside legal ranges. >>> >>> 2) Intellectual "Property" issues >>> >>> Hardware vendors don't want other hardware vendors to know how they run >>> their hardware so that their design can't be copied or stolen. >>> >>> 3) Inability to build >>> >>> Firmware is usually code for some PLD or ASIC, which needs specialized >>> (and EXPENSIVE) compilers to build. Most people are unlikely to be able >>> to turn the source into the firmware. >> >> >> Only 3 seems valid to me. But I at least understand 1 and 2. > > 1 is a serious concern as well legally. Linux kernel now has a framework to > support this. > > http://lwn.net/Articles/294675/ > > Rahul Isn't 1 also the main reason GNU disagrees with the binary firmware? Disallowing the purchases of hardware from utilizing it how they would like to? -- Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin ( www.pembo13.com ) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
