| |||||||||||||
Software-as-firmware vs software-as-softwareSoftware-as-firmware vs software-as-softwarePosted Nov 10, 2010 2:17 UTC (Wed) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702)In reply to: Software-as-firmware vs software-as-software by vonbrand Parent article: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"
> by current FSF standards, no GNU code could ever have been written
This is not true. There is some incorrect assumption you're making about the FSF stance. I wonder what it is. Why do you think no GNU code could ever have been written?
(Log in to post comments)
Software-as-firmware vs software-as-software Posted Nov 11, 2010 17:51 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Because they now insist that everything has to be/run on "free software", even down to firmware for random devices; that certainly wasn't the idea when GNU was hailed as a nice complement to propietary Unices...
Software-as-firmware vs software-as-software Posted Nov 11, 2010 18:16 UTC (Thu) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link]
Nonsense.
They have never had any problem bootstrapping with non-free software. There point is simply that this should always be understood clearly as a temporary expedient, rather than an acceptable end-point.
Software-as-firmware vs software-as-software Posted Nov 11, 2010 19:30 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] So running forever on totally propietary Unices was fine, having an (eventually replaceable) blob loaded into some crevice of the system which is running otherwise "free" software isn't? I'd expect that kind of attitude given FLOSS was on at least 80% of desktops, until then...
Software-as-firmware vs software-as-software Posted Nov 11, 2010 21:47 UTC (Thu) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link]
"temporary"
|
|||||||||||||