> > If one of them is definitely Free, then it would be nice for Linux-libre > to stop disabling the request for it, and maybe to keep the binary file > (depending on the license). But I'm still not sure: are the sources you > got the corresponding sources for the binary in the Linux tree? > >> This out-of-tree code is from 2010 and is said to work with the device >> while the mainline tree code is 10 years old. > > Well, then now I know, it's not corresponding sources, and the version > in Linux remains non-Free. > > Now, once there are source and binary in say the linux-firmware > repository, under a suitable Free Software license, I'd probably change > the request so it's not disabled any more. > >> The only practical thing to do is to get their new driver code into >> mainline > > Oh, the updated firmware file requires a new driver, too? If that's > true, the right thing to do would be to treat the request for the old > firmware like the request for any other non-Free firmware file.
well I think there is a lot of confusion here! The mainline tree dabusb driver code is outdated: it supports only the prototype of the device when it was in development 10 years ago. The out-of-tree dabusb driver code is required for controlling the commercial device sold by Terratec (DRBox1). I still haven't checked whether the released dabusb firmware source code corresponds to the firmware image that is currently requested. I think it is **possible** (although improbable) that the firmware might have been kept the same as the one used 10 years ago. I am trying to build the firmware now from source in order to compare the results to the currently requested binary file. ---- I have already done this kind of work with the keyspan/xircom firmware source codes. More about this topic in another email thread to avoid confusion! Felipe _______________________________________________ linux-libre mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsfla.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-libre
