| |||||||||||||
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"Posted Nov 12, 2010 19:10 UTC (Fri) by jebba (✭ supporter ✭, #4439)In reply to: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" by lxoliva Parent article: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Lets say that by 2.6.38 the firmware/ directory is gone (ignoring for the moment the fact that there appears to be more non-free blobs remaining). At that point linux-2.6.38.tar is clean in terms of containing only GPL code. So the kernel can say "I need firmware for $foo" and it becomes a userspace issue. Userspace can hand the kernel a proprietary blob, a FLOSS blob, or say it has nothing.
In this scenario it seems the best place for stopping the "inducement" would be in userspace. That way it can have a nice list of free and non-free firmware images (via sha1sums or somesuch). So if you want to have a system which doesn't pester you with non-free software, you could launch it (hypothetically), like: Just a suggestion. I hesitate to make it. ;)
(Log in to post comments)
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 19:34 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
I'll point out that trying to maintain a list of free sha1 signatures defeats the purpose of the firmware being free because if the user modifies it, the sha1 won't match anymore.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 21:08 UTC (Fri) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063) [Link] We don't need the list of signatures. If we do this the sensible way in the userspace firmware loader, we have the proper licensing information; in the WHENCE file or the more machine-readable thing which will shortly replace it.It's only if we try to do this in the kernel where it doesn't belong that we end up with broken hacks like the sha1 hashes.
|
|||||||||||||