On Monday 26 April 2010 20:27:14 Celejar wrote: > On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:03:07 -0500 > "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote: > > On Monday 26 April 2010 16:34:36 Celejar wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:16:32 -0500 > > > "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote: > > > > On Monday 26 April 2010 15:09:57 Celejar wrote: > > > > > What makes the non-free firmware question particularly interesting > > > > > is that the alternative is often to hardcode the functionality into > > > > > the hardware. Now, if you had a board with completely closed HW, > > > > > but that presented an open, well documented interface for the > > > > > driver, most people would be very happy (although there are, of > > > > > course, the open hardware crusaders - more power to them!). So, > > > > > now that they've simply implemented some of that functionality in > > > > > SW, in the form of firmware which the driver installs on the card, > > > > > but which has nothing to do with your host machine, are you really > > > > > any worse off? > > > > > > > > As a distributor you may very well be. If you can't provide the > > > > source code, you can't satisfy the terms of the GPL (usually). > > > > > > ? We're talking about firmware for things like wireless cards, > > > produced by the HW manufacturers, e.g., Broadcom. Where does the GPL > > > enter into this? > > > > Some are included in the tarball provided by the Linux kernel team, which > > is distributed under the GPLv2. In particular, I am thinking of the > > iwl3945 firmware that is required to run my wireless card. > > > > It doesn't matter what upstream wants to call source code. The GPL(v2) > > defines it as the preferred form for making modifications. (GPLv2, > > section 3.) It is unlikely that the firmware was written in a hex editor > > (or equivalent). Most likely it is C source for a freestanding > > (non-hosted) environment with some manufacturer-specific libraries, but > > it could also be in some manufacturer-specific assembly code. Either > > form would be better for making modifications than a binary blob. > > This is all very well, but the context of this subthread is James's > statement that he avoids installing the non-free firmware that his HW > requires out of a commitment to FLOSS ideals, to which I responded that > I'm not sure if one is really worse off installing such firmware, or > using a card that just has that logic built in to its non-free HW.
And I claim he would be better off using a card that doesn't use firmware[1] or uses free firmware, since non-free firmware is an issue for distributors and it's relatively easy to "accidentally" participate in distributing software in violation of its license. I wouldn't want to be stuck without non-free available, but I recommend making hardware purchases that allow you to avoid non-free as much as possible. I'm gradually moving that way myself. (Desktop and laptop each need one driver from non-free.) Once you've got the hardware, you might as well use it, even if it requires non-free drivers. The manufacturer has already got their cut of what you paid; you are hurting none but yourself by not using it. You should try and avoid becoming dependent on that hardware, since that makes you dependent on non-free software. [1] "Firmware" here is specifically limited to executable data transmitted to the device from a host operating system, and does not include executable data loaded from an EEPROM (or similar) that is provided with the device. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
