On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:18:25 +1100, Rodd Clarkson <rodd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm rapidly forming the opinion that firmware isn't software and that as > such has no place in the software chain. It's a fine line of > distinction, but as someone asked, are we going to stop supporting > hardware that have firmware upgrades on their chipset because the > firmware isn't 'open'? And if not, what's the difference between > hardware where the firmware is stored on a chipset and hardware where > the firmware is stored on the hard-disk? What's the difference? Clearly its one of user expectation as to who is suppose to be distributing the firmware. The difference is Fedora doesn't distribute firmware that is stored in hardware devices and thus doesn't have to ever deal with the legal questions surrounding the re-distribution rights regarding the firmware. Similarly... no one expects fedora to distribute firmware upgrades for hardware devices where the firmware is stored in the device, there is clearly an expectation there that the hardware manufactures are where you go to get any required firmware updates. Questions like... does Fedora have the right to re-distribute the firmware upgrade for my dvd burner never comes up.. because there is no expectation that any linux distro should be distributing that sort of firmware upgrade. But for some reason there is a growing expectation that linux distros should be distributing the firmware for devices that can not store firmware internally. Thats a big jump in perception. No one expects Fedora to be shipping bios updates for motherboards... even though having the most recent bios update can greatly impact the distributions ability to negotiate some aspects of hardware like acpi. And no one goes out into left field that Fedora has dropped support for a motherboard simply because users have to get the latest bios from the board vender for Fedora to work on it properly. What we are seeing now with the call for wireless firmware to be included runs straight into issues of re-distribution of copyrighted works in a way that firmware stored on hardware completely sidesteps. Having a way to shove binary firmware blobs over to hardware is a necessary piece of technology, and no one is suggesting that technology be done away with. In fact it would be great if i could stay in linux and shove firmware and bios updates to any hardware device i own. But making that technology available to inject vendor firmware into hardware is drastically different issue than shifting the distribution focus from the vendors down to the operating system distributors. And frankly i think its a raw deal for the distributors... no matter what piece of hardware we are talking about. If a bios update or a dvd drive firmware update or a wireless card firmware blob fails to work... if those items are distributed by the linux distributor.. they get the blunt of the complaints..simply because they distribute them. And thats a raw deal. If we can get bios updates from hardware oems or board vendors.. and we can get firmware updates from dvd drive vendors.. we can certaintly get the wireless firmware from card vendors or oems. I have no idea why the expectation surrounding firmware distribution has changed with these devices. -jef