Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

max maximilianbianco at gmail.com
Wed Jun 18 13:22:27 UTC 2008


jeff wrote:
> max wrote:
>> jeff wrote:
>>> max wrote:
>>>> jeff wrote:
>>>>> Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>>>> It depends on your definition of software, according to Fedora's 
>>>>>> definitions firmware is not software it is content. I know this is 
>>>>>> a word game, but think about it, what is the definition of software?
>>>>>
>>>>>  From the Oxford English Dictionary:
>>>>>
>>>>> software
>>>>>     1. Computers.    a. The programs and procedures required to 
>>>>> enable a computer to perform a specific task, as opposed to the 
>>>>> physical components of the system (see also quot. 1961).    b. esp. 
>>>>> The body of system programs, including compilers and library 
>>>>> routines, required for the operation of a particular computer and 
>>>>> often provided by the manufacturer, as opposed to program material 
>>>>> provided by a user for a specific task.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't realize fedora was claiming that firmware isn't software. 
>>>>> Now that is bullshit. You call it a word game, I'll call it what it 
>>>>> is. *Content??!* It's obviously software. I mean, it can be copied, 
>>>>> it can be rewritten (well, by the people in the castle with the 
>>>>> code), it can be compiled, etc... Clearly software. I guess you 
>>>>> need a PhD to delude yourself otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Usually techs are so precise, I can't believe the doublethinking here.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are starting to work against yourself. Firmware usually comes 
>>>> with my devices, it is reloadable but it comes with the device when 
>>>> I make the purchase, I don't have to load firmware into a device to 
>>>> make it work in the first place. It is part of the hardware because 
>>>> the hardware requires it to run. I thought that was why software and 
>>>> firmware where two different terms. Firmware is software but the 
>>>> hardware relies on it to function and it is included in the purchase 
>>>> price of the hardware. Software is generally acquired separately 
>>>> from the hardware. Windows(software) comes preinstalled on many 
>>>> computers(hardware) but I can remove windows and still have 
>>>> functional hardware but if I remove the BIOS , windows nor linux 
>>>> will run.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you remove the non-free software from tg3.c the device will still 
>>> work.
>> Completely?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> no loss of functionality whatsoever?
> 
> I think the firmware does some TCP offloading or something so more 
> processing happens in the card instead of the kernel, but I'm really not 
> certain what the firmware is doing. In fact, only the people with the 
> source code know what it's doing, I supppose.
> 
> But it works 100% fine as a regular network card without the firmware.
> 
>> can you still interact with it?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> I need to be able to interact with a device in order for it to be 
>> useful to me. My car will run without a driver but its not going 
>> anywhere. My computer will run without an operator but  human 
>> interaction is required at some point to make it useful to me, if only 
>> for initial setup.
> 
> The card works fine with linux-libre, no firmware required.
> 
>>> "It is part of the hardware because the hardware requires it to run", 
>>> you wrote.
>>
>> I phrased it poorly in hindsight but its more or less true in most 
>> cases, or I should have said that its needed to interact with other 
>> hardware or software.
> 
> So you meant "It is part of the hardware because its needed to interact 
> with the hardware or software" ??? wtf?
> 
>> At some point it has to be configurable by a person through some 
>> extension or another in order to be useful.
> 
> /sbin/ifconfig
> 
>> I don't think manufacturers obsessed with the bottom line are hiring 
>> programmers to write unneeded firmware just to annoy free software 
>> advocates.
> 
> I don't either.
> 
>>  >What does that make the non-free software in tg3.c?
>>
>>
>> Unnecessary but is that the case in every instance?
> 
> Does it have to be? I'm just pointing out the things I see in the Linux 
> kernel that are clearly not free software.
> 
>> I am perfectly willing to be educated/corrected and I have heard 
>> arguments from both sides that have merit, I am tempted to send a copy 
>> of the GPL  to my lawyer and get the interpretation of someone who 
>> doesn't have a horse in this race.
> 
> Please do. And show him a copy of tg3.c too please. :)
> 
BTW I never said he, you have made an unwarranted assumption:^) tsktsktsk

-- 
Fortune favors the BOLD




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list