FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"
Posted Nov 13, 2010 9:55 UTC (Sat) by dwmw2
In reply to: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"
Parent article: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"
"Interesting... I'm pretty sure I've seen laptops with b43 WiFi and GNU/Linux preinstalled for sale."
If that's true, then those devices wouldn't be using the normal kernel driver for b43; they'd be using the illegal binary-only one which has the firmware built in to it. And thus the same point applies for the user to have extracted that firmware and placed it into /lib/firmware
requires a deliberate effort on their part.
"Now, you'll see that both of these are actually orthogonal to the licensing of the blobs: they're just ways to enable the kernel to tell whether a certain file is available without inducing users to go get them"
Alexandre, this is getting stupid and I'm getting bored. DO IT IN USERSPACE
A simple upcall from kernel to udev with a filename such as cpia2/stv0672_vp4.bin is NOT an inducement to the user to use non-free software. Not even if the user is currently running udev-monitor to watch for such things. That's just a stupid thing to say. It's almost as if you're confusing "userspace" with "the user".
The process which handles the request in userspace is in a much better position to do what you want. It has the licensing information, and can easily implement the policy you desire which seems to be a silent failure without inducing the user to know why their hardware isn't working.
Or you could do the filtering in modprobe instead you could look at the MODULE_FIRMWARE tag in the module, then refuse to load the module at all if it is going to ask for a firmware file that you cannot provide. And that way you do get to avoid the request_firmware() call that you are so bizarrely concerned about.
to post comments)