5 May
2004
5 May
'04
8:25 a.m.
[Takashi, is there a specific reason why you cut off the Cc: list? Up
to now nobody as objected to it, and I'd like the discussion to be as
widespread amongst the interested parties as possible]
>>>> "Takashi" == Takashi Iwai
<tiwai(a)suse.de> writes:
i might have minunderstood his arguments, but let me
try to
straighten the discussion.
1) the firmware loader itself is clean. the all
source codes
are provided under GPL.
Agreed.
2) the firmware data is, so far, provided also under
GPL, too.
(i.e. it is redistributable by any person.) and this looks like
a problem. if the firmware data is regarded as a "program", the
corresponding source codes must be provided. but if it's
nothing but "data"? how can we prove for/against that?
I'd first ask to formally (well, as formally as possible) define
what's "program" and what's "data". Everytime I tried to
do it, I
always ended up concluding there was no real difference, at least not
in any Von Neumann's architecture based machine.
4) because of the suspect of (2), AGNULA
doesn't include
alsa-firmware package in the live-cd.
Exactly.
so, the discussion should have nothing to do with
the fact "on
which system the firmware is loaded".
I agree.
it's the question of distribution. it it's
distributed under a
wrong license, either change the license or provide what's
needed additionally.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean with this last sentence.
in addition to the above, there is another thing to
discuss --
whether such gray binary stuffs are included in AGNULA. AGNULA
people must decide it, if the alsa-firmware data is released
under a different license.
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand this part neither.
bye,
--
Andrea Glorioso andrea.glorioso(a)agnula.org
AGNULA Technical Manager http://www.agnula.org/
M: +39 333 820 5723 F: +39 (0)51 930 31 133
"Libre Audio, Libre Video, Libre Software: AGNULA"