Re: [LUG] Binary firmware licences

[Robin Cornelius <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ben Goodger wrote:

> Yes.. rather than doing something useful by releasing the source and
> schematics...

I do have to object here, companies are not obliged to give out all
code, circuit diagrams and drawings of things they make. The company in
question has given the developers data sheets for their chips (and
example code released GPL) and this is normaly what is required. If the
device has a firmware component then it is *nice* if you can recompile
the firmware and change it but companies are allowed some secrets. At
least they are fully embracing open source for the driver and are
supportive of linux.


> If it doesn't have source code you won't get it into Debian. They object
> to the GPL in many ways: I doubt very much that they'll allow a
> binary-only driver in.
> 

Ok, so what we can do is just get the open source driver into the kernel
  (which is happening) then create a package/script etc that can
download the required firmware when requested. We are in the same boat
as many other drivers that require firmware.

I know its a sticky political situation but it is such a shame in
instances like this that a linux user has to take an extra step to make
their device work while a windows user can just plug it in and the
driver is avaiable with firmware.

I suspose the techincal solution is to make the devices flashable so
that firmware can be flashed at build and then if the manufacture later
updates the device it can be upgraded so there is no depence on the host
system for firmware.


Regards

Robin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature