On Thu, Sep 13, 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote:
>
> We currently have an implementation that works, although
> it works by downloading several firmwares for several devices
> or even several countries. This is not what I want to have in
> future since it's not needed and it's also hard to manage for
> distributors. All those differences could be adjusted by
> software even without module parameter hacks.
This argument doesn't hold water. The unpleasant point
for users and distributors isn't the "binary-only"
thing, it's the "no right to distribute" problem.
And that's the same for firmware blobs or binary-only
userspace blobs.
IOW, if you can get the right to redistribute a binary-only
userspace blob which incudes the firmware inside, why
shouldn't you be able to get the right to redistribute
just the firmware?
Or the other way round: Do you think your binary-only software
will be important enough so distributors will go through
all the trouble of trying to get a license to include it in
their distribution? If so, why wouldn't they do the same
for the plain firmware blobs for in-kernel drivers?
Johannes
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
