| |||||||||||||
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"Posted Nov 9, 2010 17:06 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868)In reply to: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" by hmh Parent article: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"
> Whether the firmware is distributed in a separate place makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
Unless of course the separate place is non-volatile memory that comes with the hardware. Then it's perfectly okay.
(Log in to post comments)
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 9, 2010 20:11 UTC (Tue) by hmh (subscriber, #3838) [Link]
I don't know what the FSFLA and FSF thinks about this, but IMO what should make a difference is whether it is field-upgradeable or not.
Being an EE, I also have other criteria for field-upgradeable units, as I am perfectly aware that in some cases, open firmware would be usable only if almost all of the inner working of the hardware was documented to the public in the first place, at which point we're talking about open hardware.
Personally, I have no issues with self-contained non-free firmware as long as the API to interface with it is fully documented, and support channels are in place to get fixes for that firmware for at least 5 years after the product is available to the public. I don't expect the FSF to agree with this one...
|
|||||||||||||