Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 03:41:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>> Is this the case even if the firmware is in a flash chip attached to the >>> device? If the total amount of non-free software on a user's system is >>> the same regardless, why are we concerned about how it's packaged? >> >> The total amount of non-free software on a user's system is different if the >> firmware comes pre-loaded on the device than if we have to load it from the >> OS, isn't it? > > By system, I'm referring to the hardware as well. > >> If there is at least one real-world device that works with the driver >> without needing to load additional firmware, I think the driver is >> unambiguously free from this standpoint. If no one can point to a device >> that the driver works with without the help of an additional non-free >> firmware blob, I'm not certain I agree that it doesn't have a dependency on >> non-free software. > > But almost every driver requires an additional non-free firmware blob. > In general, there are two cases: > > 1) That firmware is in an eeprom, and so was distributed to the user > when the hardware was bought > 2) That firmware is not in an eeprom, and so was distributed to the user > when they obtained drivers > > In most versions of case (2), the user will already own a copy of the > firmware - it'll be on the Windows driver CD in some form. It would be > trivial to add code to the driver packages to copy this code off the CD. > At that point, in no case does Debian distribute the firmware. > > Ignoring Brian's strange arguments about rodents, I can see no cases > where the user has more freedom if the firmware comes from an eeprom > rather than from a CD.
He can sell the device with the firmware in it, or reverse engineer it without encountering any license agreements involving the firmware. It's a physical device with a copy of the data, like a book. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
