Francesco Poli writes: > On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 08:50:00 -0400 Michael Poole wrote: > > [...] >> I personally disagree -- on the grounds that the software works as it >> should without the blobs, and the hardware is what fails to provide >> the necessary interface -- but mine is a minority viewpoint. > > By that line of reasoning, a non-free-kernel could be seen as a means to > cause the hardware to provide the necessary interface, and any > user-space DFSG-compliant program could go in main, even if it somehow > requires the non-free-kernel in order to be useful. > > Or you could conceive the kernel + non-free-interpreter combination as a > means to cause the hardware to provide the necessary interface, and any > DFSG-compliant script could go in main, even when it requires the > non-free-interpreter in order to be useful. > > > IOW, I'm not convinced by your argument.
If many people were, mine would probably not be a minority viewpoint. It is commonly held that software in main might only be useful when used with non-main (and non-free) software over a network. I think the same rule should apply when talking to some reasonably discrete device (such as the DSL modems of this thread). You clearly do not. I doubt either of us will change the other's mind. I also doubt either of us has a bright line test that distinguishes the two types of dependency. (My perspective is born of close work with many FPGA developers. I find it natural to distinguish between the CPU-side software I write and the firmware they write. I also understand why others disagree.) Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]