4 May
2004
4 May
'04
11:18 a.m.
At Tue, 04 May 2004 11:08:28 +0200,
Andrea Glorioso wrote:
the firmware is necessary only for the hardware. it's not directly
related with the other software, such as driver, the apps, or anything
else.
for example, the loader program itself can work even with a dummy
data (although the hardware behaviour would become unexpectable).
hmm, i'll ask them again, but as far as i've heard from them, they
wanted to keep the internal firmware information closed.
don't expect too much about this...
Takashi
so far, alsa-firmware package is released from
the understanding
of 1 as "data". but if someone insists it as program, yes, it
can be a problem.
And what's worse, the distinction between "program" and
"data" can
often become really blurry. And I might be wrong, but my guess is
that if a piece of data is absolutely necessary for a GNU GPL program
to work, then that data should be distributed together with the
program at the same conditions of the GNU GPL (otherwise the GNU GPL
itself could be very easily bypassed). sure, the
correct distribution under GPL would be the best case,
i.e. including the source code of the orignal assembly codes (if
really exists).
basically, it is a decision of the h/w vendor
who provides the
DSP binary, not by me. if the GPL is really unsuitable (and we
can judge the firmware as a program 100% absolutely :), we'll
suggest them to either show the source code or change the
license ASAP. but i don't expect GPL source codes as a realistic
solution, although i'll try it of course. remember that they
are *really* delicate about the firmware code.
The first step I would do is ask the companies that are distributing
firmware under the GNU GPL is a written and signed statement that the
binary code is actually their preferred form to modify the program, as
as such the binary and the source really are the same thing.