lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: request_firmware() backport to 2.4
Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> Marcelo wrote :
>
>>On 1 Sep 2003, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
>>
>>
>>>no, the bfubase.frm is the original firmware file from AVM. This file
>>>have to be placed somewhere on the filesystem.
>>
>>Right, and without placing the file somewhere on the filesystem bfusb
>>2.4.22 users wont have 2.4.23 working without "issues".
>
>
> But various high level kernel people, such as Jeff, have
> decided that binary firmwares *must* be removed from the kernel
> because of legal "issues" (GPL == source available). In 2.6.X, it
> seems that the tolerance towards this "issue" will end, so all those
> nasty details will have to work.

Well, I wouldn't put it that strongly.

It's more like, at least in my own case, the Debian people make a stink
about the legality of non-GPL'd firmwares. And certain people, and at
certain times, have refused patches related to legality of firmwares.
AND, on top of all that, as a programmer I hate seeing these ugly BLOBs
embedded in C code, and would much rather see them removed from the C
source code.

So, I "prefer" that firmware leaves the kernel, but that's just my
personal opinion. There has been no decision made AFAIK, and I don't
recall Marcelo or Linus speaking definitively on the subject.


> Of course, 2.4.X is more "don't rock the boat".

Agreed...

Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.034 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site