| |||||||||||||
gNewSense makes sensegNewSense makes sensePosted Feb 2, 2007 23:05 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722)Parent article: gNewSense makes sense
I'm still mystified by distributions which aren't willing to include non-free firmware files, but are willing to include non-free license files. Surely there are more users who want to license their copyrighted works under a modified free software license than users who want their wireless chipsets to behave differently. Not that either is a large group compared to people who want to be allowed to modify all their host-side software or even people who want to remove social commentary from their program manuals, but I'd personally sooner accept NoDerivs firmware than a NoDerivs license document (and I do accept both of them).
(Log in to post comments)
gNewSense makes sense Posted Feb 3, 2007 15:42 UTC (Sat) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] If licenses could be changed there would be no point in naming the license. By not allowing changes to license text, a developer can just check which license is being used without needing to read the license for each file they might find useful. Reading the license is not enough you need to understand the legal issues involved in each wording change. License proliferation is a nightmare from an administrative point of view, if the wording within the license could be changed it would be very difficult to put together any meaningful collection of software because the licenses could easily become incompatible. Are you sure you want free license files?
I am not smart enough to know for sure but, I assume that firmware can be made to do things when interacting with the software or data stored on my hardware that I would not appreciate. The other concern is that firmware can be changed and the changes may not be wanted by the owner of the hardware. When I purchase hardware I don't want to be owned by the hardware manufacturer in the same way that I don't want to be owned by a proprietary software vendor. If my assumptions regarding firmware are correct, gNewSense seems like a good distribution choice.
gNewSense makes sense Posted Feb 3, 2007 17:46 UTC (Sat) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] What are your assumptions about firmware ?
You do realize that the same firmware that you are afraid of could equally well be embedded in the hardware device itself (at increased cost). Problem solved - it is no longer distributed with the kernel. I presume that you would be OK with that. Why is the same firmware acceptable when it is stored in the device, but not acceptable when it is dynamically uploaded to the device ?
I personally find the whole sourceless firmware issue completely ridiculous.
gNewSense makes sense Posted Feb 4, 2007 6:20 UTC (Sun) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Why is the same firmware acceptable when it is stored in the device, but not acceptable when it is dynamically uploaded to the device ?Because later case involves copying of copyrighted material by somebody other than the copyright holder, and therefore is regulated by copyright laws.
gNewSense makes sense Posted Feb 4, 2007 20:28 UTC (Sun) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] I am sorry but that is really very unconvincing. How does it change the end result, except that in one case the hardware is more expensive and more difficult to maintain ?
Case A: The firmware is in EPROM/FLASH. The product works but is $15 more expensive and firmware bugs are somewhat more difficult to fix. The users, the kernel developers, the world, couldn't care less about the firmware since it is practically unaccessible to them, so they happily use the product.
Case B: The firmware is a binary blob, which the copyright holder has given permission to distribute unmodified. The product works. Again, the users and the kernel developers don't care about the firmware because it is practically inaccessible to them.
I can't imagine any reason, be it legal, technical or otherwse, why Case A is preferable. I would be embarrassed to explain to any of my not-so-technical friends that the free software community is wasting time with such nonsense. Ideology loses credibility when it is used to fight a meaningless cause, especially when there are plenty of _real_ causes worth fighting for.
gNewSense makes sense Posted Feb 14, 2007 2:48 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] We are talking about a distribution here, and my answer was not about the "end result". A distribution may have problems distributing non-free firmware, or it may be against its policy to distribute anything that doesn't qualify as free software.
gNewSense makes sense Posted Feb 3, 2007 20:05 UTC (Sat) by filipjoelsson (subscriber, #2622) [Link] If my assumptions regarding firmware are correct, gNewSense seems like a good distribution choice. "If" is the operative word here. You have made a host of assumptions about firmware and gNewSense that you have not explained:
So the point of the exercise is which of these?
Neither of these has anything to do with Debian vs gNewSense. This is a question of checking your hardware's support for Linux before buying it, and gNewSense is not helping in any relevant way. A hardware blacklist might help for that - but in the shape of a distro? How is that "the right tool for the right job" or "keep it simple, stupid"? The question begs to be answered.
|
|||||||||||||