Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I don't understand how there's any disagreement in this case: it's clearly >> software, covered by the DFSG (or at least the one Debian will be using >> soon), it's required (a Depends), and clearly non-free. > > On the other hand, if it's clearly software when it's on CD then it's > clearly software when it's on eeprom.
False. That's why we call it firmware, not just "software living on a device". It's an implementation detail of the hardware that they happen to have shipped a microprocessor and a hardwired program. If the program had been burned into a circuit in an FPGA, would you still call it software? If it's a single-use PROM, is it still software? >From the point of view of the driver, the device is just a device. It gets... driven. That's it. No need to consider the things inside and force decisions about software or not onto them. Anything the user's being told to copy to /usr/local/something, on the other hand, is clearly software. > If it's a dependency when it's on CD, it's equally a dependency when > it's on eeprom. The only distinction that can be drawn is whether or > not it ends up on the user's hard drive. Surely the storage > mechanism used does not alter the freeness of something? Surely the implementation details of a device do not alter the freeness of it? -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]