Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Wed, 03 Sep 2003 12:50:44 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |