Comments!!!
- FREE SOFTWARE DEFINITION - By Free Software Foundation
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
These firmwares below affect us directly, affect our freedom!
- ipw2100-firmware-1.3-8.noarch.rpm Redistributable, no modification permitted
- ipw2200-firmware-3.0-9.noarch.rpm Redistributable, no modification permitted
- iwlwifi-firmware-2.14.3-2.noarch.rpm Redistributable, no modification permitted
- zd1211-firmware-1.3-4.fc7.noarch.rpm GPL (hex dump, not source code)
A member of the FSF commented, "these firmwares are not free, if the firmwares are not free, the software are not free!".
If fedora include non free software, we are not a 100% Free Distribution.
Where is the our INFINITE FREEDOM ?
What is the position of the project on non free firmwares?
ASS: Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira www.projetofedora.org
Rodrigo Padula wrote:
If fedora include non free software, we are not a 100% Free Distribution.
Where is the our INFINITE FREEDOM ?
That wasn't even accepted as a slogan formally.
What is the position of the project on non free firmwares?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-adf31c383612aac31371...
FSF position on this seems to be rather inconsistent to me since they have endorsed certain distributions as Free even if they include such firmware in the kernel inherited from upstream.
Rahul
On 6/18/07, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-adf31c383612aac31371...
FSF position on this seems to be rather inconsistent to me since they have endorsed certain distributions as Free even if they include such firmware in the kernel inherited from upstream.
They have? Where?
As far as I know the only GNU/Linux distribution currently endorsed by the FSF is gNewSense. gNewSense ships a patched kernel which removes all the blobs.
If you are aware of anything in gNewSense which isn't consistent with the position that user loadable firmware needs to be free, please let them know.. I'm sure they will be glad to fix it.
I think it is past due for Fedora to take at least a half-step and segregate the non-free firmware into separate packages which can be excluded at install time.
Doing so will not win Fedora any credit from the FSF, but it will do nothing to harm the standing hardware compatibility and it will enable those who care and who want to avoid that hardware to do so.
Increasing awareness is good for everyone.
Really, I think it's quite unfortunate that the 'most free'/FSF approved' distro is based on Ubuntu... a distribution which hasn't a fraction of Fedora's commitment to freedom. .. but it is what it is.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 6/18/07, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-adf31c383612aac31371...
FSF position on this seems to be rather inconsistent to me since they have endorsed certain distributions as Free even if they include such firmware in the kernel inherited from upstream.
They have? Where?
As far as I know the only GNU/Linux distribution currently endorsed by the FSF is gNewSense. gNewSense ships a patched kernel which removes all the blobs.
See http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions. All the distributions except maybe gNewSense (I asked for more information but didn't get any detailed response) have such firmware in them.
If you are aware of anything in gNewSense which isn't consistent with the position that user loadable firmware needs to be free, please let them know.. I'm sure they will be glad to fix it.
They have already been informed personally by me on several occasions and they haven't fixed it. You might want to do some cross checking yourself before making claims.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FreeSoftwareAnalysis
I think it is past due for Fedora to take at least a half-step and segregate the non-free firmware into separate packages which can be excluded at install time.
The in-kernel firmware? It's not a easy process. See Fedora Advisory Board list archives for details.
Rahul
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 23:07 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I think it is past due for Fedora to take at least a half-step and segregate the non-free firmware into separate packages which can be excluded at install time. Doing so will not win Fedora any credit from the FSF, but it will do nothing to harm the standing hardware compatibility and it will enable those who care and who want to avoid that hardware to do so. Increasing awareness is good for everyone.
I'm not a big fan of these meta-discussions and debates. They sign-up developers with all sorts of non-sense that really doesn't do much for anyone.
However, this is about the only statement I agree with in part. To refine it, I would state ...
"Fedora's board should _consider_ mandating the segmentation of key, 100% redistributable, but non-free[dom] components into their own portion of the 3-tier RPM hierarchy. And if and when that mandate comes through, it's up to the board to set what release's development this will affect going forward."
As far as adding an option to checkbox "exclude" all non-free[dom] components, I'll leave it to the Anaconda, YUM, et. al. maintainers to discuss the technical feasibility of such. Frankly, I think just segmenting those components into a Non-Free tier in the RPM hierarchy would do everything needed. Debian does this fairly well (although far from perfect).
Since they are still 100% redistributable, that solves the indemnification issues, which should _always_ be the focus of Fedora IMPO. Things that aren't should be, for the same reason.
Really, I think it's quite unfortunate that the 'most free'/FSF approved' distro is based on Ubuntu... a distribution which hasn't a fraction of Fedora's commitment to freedom. .. but it is what it is.
Some would and could take issue with certain aspects around the distro though. Others would argue Debian is just as good, and possibly even better in many regards. It all depends on the definition/context.
But that just goes to my point, if people want to find something alleged "wrong" or "impure" around about any community endeavor, they will -- and utterly miss the real fact that there is a community that cares, despite the non-sense.
As long as Fedora keeps its focus, as it has in the past, not only consumers but, more importantly, consumers with influence in major corporations continue to be able to deploy Fedora or even roll out Fedora-based solutions -- without any legal issues. That's unlike a lot of distros -- and the reason why Red Hat Linux (as well as Debian) have always been very popular.
-- Bryan
P.S. Congrats to the Fedora team for putting forth the efforts that have now allowed Red Hat to reach level 4 in the Common Criteria with RBAC and other capabilities. People have been lambasting SELinux, and Red Hat, for a long time. But it's the community efforts, like those in Fedora, that made it largely possible.
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
As far as adding an option to checkbox "exclude" all non-free[dom] components, I'll leave it to the Anaconda, YUM, et. al. maintainers to discuss the technical feasibility of such. Frankly, I think just segmenting those components into a Non-Free tier in the RPM hierarchy would do everything needed. Debian does this fairly well (although far from perfect).
The line to draw is difficult to determine. Would that include documentation, fonts, images etc?
Since they are still 100% redistributable, that solves the indemnification issues, which should _always_ be the focus of Fedora IMPO. Things that aren't should be, for the same reason.
Everything is 100% redistributable already and will always be.
P.S. Congrats to the Fedora team for putting forth the efforts that have now allowed Red Hat to reach level 4 in the Common Criteria with RBAC and other capabilities. People have been lambasting SELinux, and Red Hat, for a long time. But it's the community efforts, like those in Fedora, that made it largely possible.
Absolutely. RHEL now has the highest possible security level certification that any operating system ever has got out of the box without the need for creating a separate fork. Without technologies like SELinux and the ability of a open community to merge these very disruptive changes fairly well that would be pretty much impossible.
Rahul
Rodrigo Padula wrote:
- FREE SOFTWARE DEFINITION - By Free Software Foundation
...
These firmwares below affect us directly, affect our freedom!
software != firmware.
The Board's current position is that firmware (that doesn't run on the host CPU) is a reasonable exception (to modifiability). It is our hope that once these ground-rules are established and well understood, hardware manufacturers will be more willing to produce/support high-quality linux drivers (preferably in the upstream kernel).
-- Rex
Firmware IS SOFTWARE!!
firmware = software
The FSF considers firmware as software.
If the firmware isnt free, the Fedora isnt FREE!!
We can't change the firmware, then the firmware isn't FREE!!
Where are the Infinite Freedom ? Freedom to change the Code, to change the firmware!!
Please, read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware "*firmware* is software"
Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira www.projetofedora.org
On 6/19/07, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
Rodrigo Padula wrote:
- FREE SOFTWARE DEFINITION - By Free Software Foundation
...
These firmwares below affect us directly, affect our freedom!
software != firmware.
The Board's current position is that firmware (that doesn't run on the host CPU) is a reasonable exception (to modifiability). It is our hope that once these ground-rules are established and well understood, hardware manufacturers will be more willing to produce/support high-quality linux drivers (preferably in the upstream kernel).
-- Rex
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
I'll give you a "real world" example that binds companies.
The US FCC, for regulator reasons, does *NOT* want WLAN cards to be reprogrammable to broadcast in other frequencies. This means that at least parts of *ALL* WLAN firmware these days is basically "closed" these days.
From Broadcom to Intel, this is the reality, sorry.
This has been the case since the original Linux firmware tools were developed for the Intersil PRISM*1* cards.
Furthermore, in many other cases, firmware is often *NOT* merely "source code." In many cases and significant portions, it's often pure machine code or other pure byte code, sometimes just binary data/values. Allowing users to tinker with this code leads to massive support issues (even beyond what they can already do with the loader already - which is a support issue).
The Linux community has *NO* business dorking with the firmware logic othat drives the on-device intelligence. Linux only needs to know how to interface with the device, not how to change the device's internal logic. Anyone who knows the first thing about embedded or intelligent hardware device development knows this!
It is *NOT* against the terms of the GPL license, and Linus himself has talked about this repeatedly. We're *NOT* talking about support functions in the Linux kernel itself (e.g., they are not the same as GPU memory functions, such as those from ATI or nVidia, that go in the kernel itself).
It's gross ignorance and blanket statements like this that make us EEs and other hardware and device friver developers roll our eyes!
Most of the time the "firmware update" option included in the kernel is just an "added option" in a kernel driver so you don't have to boot into DOS. The driver does *NOT* require it to function in Linux at all!
Another example ...
Linux talks to the uC/ASIC on a true hardware RAID card, like the PPC400 on the AMCC/3Ware products. The kernel has *NO* business changing how the on-board PPC400 uses it's memory and it's ATA channels. Linux *NEVER* communications directly to those components (except for DMA as setup by the PPC).
So if you do *NOT* know the first thing of what I'm talking about, you have *NO* business talking about it from the standpoint of ignorance. Leave the legal debate to the sound, technically knowledgable developers who do. Otherwise, you're only going to mis-represent the issue - especially when it's often *NOT* a GPL issue either.
-- Bryan
*1*NOTE: I used to work with Mark Mathews and Brian Mathews at AVS. Brian Mathews (EE) helped develop the PRISM MAC hardware at Intersil. Mark Mathews (CS) developed the original tools for various PRISM functions, including firmware and other frequency support/modification. Many of these functions canNOT be open source because of FCC mandate.
-- Bryan J Smith - mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: "Rodrigo Padula" rodrigopadula@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:46:40 To:"For discussions about marketing and expanding the Fedora user base" fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: Infinite Freedom???
Firmware IS SOFTWARE!! <br><br>firmware = software<br><br>The FSF considers firmware as software.<br><br>If the firmware isnt free, the Fedora isnt FREE!! <br><br>We can't change the firmware, then the firmware isn't FREE!! <br><br>Where are the Infinite Freedom ? Freedom to change the Code, to change the firmware!!<br><br>Please, read this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware</a> "<b>firmware </b> is software"<br><br><br>Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira<br><a href="http://www.projetofedora.org">www.projetofedora.org</a><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/19/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Rex Dieter</b> <<a href="mailto:rdieter@math.unl.edu">rdieter@math.unl.edu</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Rodrigo Padula wrote: <br><br>> - FREE SOFTWARE DEFINITION - By Free Software Foundation<br>...<br>> These firmwares below affect us directly, affect our freedom!<br><br>software != firmware.<br><br>The Board's current position is that firmware (that doesn't run on the host <br>CPU) is a reasonable exception (to modifiability). It is our hope that<br>once these ground-rules are established and well understood, hardware<br>manufacturers will be more willing to produce/support high-quality linux <br>drivers (preferably in the upstream kernel).<br><br>-- Rex<br><br>--<br>Fedora-marketing-list mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com">Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com</a><br><a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list"> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list</a><br></blockquote></div><br>
The question is not purely technique, is philosophical!
The philosophy is the base of our work!
If the Free Software Foundation says that the use of non free firmwares affect our freedom, us must take this in consideration when including this in the distribution.
If the firmware isn't free or "modifiable", if we dont have this permission our freedom is not infinite, it is finite.
I think that firmwares would not have to be distributed in fedora Medias (CDS, DVDS).
We use the "Infinite Freedom" as slogan, we must follow the recommendations of the FSF, not including non free firmwares.
Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira http://www.projetofedora.org
On 6/19/07, Bryan J Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org wrote:
I'll give you a "real world" example that binds companies.
The US FCC, for regulator reasons, does *NOT* want WLAN cards to be reprogrammable to broadcast in other frequencies. This means that at least parts of *ALL* WLAN firmware these days is basically "closed" these days.
From Broadcom to Intel, this is the reality, sorry.
This has been the case since the original Linux firmware tools were developed for the Intersil PRISM*1* cards.
Furthermore, in many other cases, firmware is often *NOT* merely "source code." In many cases and significant portions, it's often pure machine code or other pure byte code, sometimes just binary data/values. Allowing users to tinker with this code leads to massive support issues (even beyond what they can already do with the loader already - which is a support issue).
The Linux community has *NO* business dorking with the firmware logic othat drives the on-device intelligence. Linux only needs to know how to interface with the device, not how to change the device's internal logic. Anyone who knows the first thing about embedded or intelligent hardware device development knows this!
It is *NOT* against the terms of the GPL license, and Linus himself has talked about this repeatedly. We're *NOT* talking about support functions in the Linux kernel itself ( e.g., they are not the same as GPU memory functions, such as those from ATI or nVidia, that go in the kernel itself).
It's gross ignorance and blanket statements like this that make us EEs and other hardware and device friver developers roll our eyes!
Most of the time the "firmware update" option included in the kernel is just an "added option" in a kernel driver so you don't have to boot into DOS. The driver does *NOT* require it to function in Linux at all!
Another example ...
Linux talks to the uC/ASIC on a true hardware RAID card, like the PPC400 on the AMCC/3Ware products. The kernel has *NO* business changing how the on-board PPC400 uses it's memory and it's ATA channels. Linux *NEVER* communications directly to those components (except for DMA as setup by the PPC).
So if you do *NOT* know the first thing of what I'm talking about, you have *NO* business talking about it from the standpoint of ignorance. Leave the legal debate to the sound, technically knowledgable developers who do. Otherwise, you're only going to mis-represent the issue - especially when it's often *NOT* a GPL issue either.
-- Bryan
*1*NOTE: I used to work with Mark Mathews and Brian Mathews at AVS. Brian Mathews (EE) helped develop the PRISM MAC hardware at Intersil. Mark Mathews (CS) developed the original tools for various PRISM functions, including firmware and other frequency support/modification. Many of these functions canNOT be open source because of FCC mandate.
-- Bryan J Smith - mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: "Rodrigo Padula" rodrigopadula@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:46:40 To:"For discussions about marketing and expanding the Fedora user base" < fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com> Subject: Re: Infinite Freedom???
Firmware IS SOFTWARE!! <br><br>firmware = software<br><br>The FSF considers firmware as software.<br><br>If the firmware isnt free, the Fedora isnt FREE!! <br><br>We can't change the firmware, then the firmware isn't FREE!! <br><br>Where are the Infinite Freedom ? Freedom to change the Code, to change the firmware!!<br><br>Please, read this <a href=" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware</a> "<b>firmware </b> is software"<br><br><br>Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira<br><a href=" http://www.projetofedora.org">www.projetofedora.org</a><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/19/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Rex Dieter</b> <<a href="mailto:rdieter@math.unl.edu">rdieter@math.unl.edu</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Rodrigo Padula wrote: <br><br>> - FREE SOFTWARE DEFINITION - By Free Software Foundation<br>...<br>> These firmwares below affect us directly, affect our freedom!<br><br>software != firmware.<br><br>The Board's current position is that firmware (that doesn't run on the host <br>CPU) is a reasonable exception (to modifiability). It is our hope that<br>once these ground-rules are established and well understood, hardware<br>manufacturers will be more willing to produce/support high-quality linux <br>drivers (preferably in the upstream kernel).<br><br>-- Rex<br><br>--<br>Fedora-marketing-list mailing list<br><a href="mailto: Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com">Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com</a><br><a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list"> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list </a><br></blockquote></div><br>
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
Rodrigo Padula wrote:
We use the "Infinite Freedom" as slogan, we must follow the recommendations of the FSF, not including non free firmwares.
Like I said FSF has endorsed several distributions which has such firmware in the kernel
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions
We don't have any official slogans for Fedora either FYI. Our freedoms have always been finite.
Rahul
Sigh. I'm tired of the gross ignorance on this subject. Furthermore, there are different types of "firmwares." Most are not only GPL compatible "bundlings," but 100% redistributable and compatible with Fedora's guidelines too.
I deploy AMCC/3Ware true hardware RAID cards. 3Ware bundles firmware updates in its drivers. Before they did this, one had to boot DOS or Windows to update firmware. 3Ware's Escalade series was the first ATA RAID card to have a full GPL driver (in 2.2.15+). The Linux kernel doesn't use the firmware at all, it's for the on-board PPC400 of the hardware RAID card!
So unless Fedora starts bundling a _full GCC _cross-compiler_ and related toolchain for a PPC4xx target (that'll add a few hundred MBs), one can_not_ build the firmware "from source" on a Fedora distro anyway! Same goes for many other "intelligent" firmware - even down to the on-board Intelligent Drive Electronics (IDE) of ATA/ATAPI devices (should hard drive/optical vendors ever start offering to bundle their firmware updates - especially for ATAPI DVD drives). After a few ARMs and other microcontrollers, you'd be talking a few GBs of toolchains!
For those that disagree, are *YOU* going to maintain those? If not, who? Does Red Hat buy Montavista or TimeSys or some other company and basically _dedicate_ them to maintaining these toolchains? And who does the Q&A when the driver won't build because there's slight toolchain differences in various sev setups?
Case-in-point: For those that are still against it, do you even _remotely_understand_ what I'm talking about?
In not, don't try to say or otherwise promote what you think the FSF is saying. Don't bother to argue against what you don't understand. This issue is for kernel developers and their copyrights, companies and their hardware products, and countless other developers.
Linus have repeatedly gone on record what is defined as a "derived work" of Linux as well as "bundled software" even outside of that. If the firmware works, unmodified, on another OS, it's not derived from Linux. If the firmware is not required for operation, then it's bundled.
Hell, even the GPL has exceptions for basic hardware firmware. Otherwise the PC BIOS, Intel EFI and other components would have to be GPL.
-- Bryan J Smith - mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 06:12:44 To:For discussions about marketing and expanding the Fedora user base fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com Cc:b.j.smith@ieee.org Subject: Re: Infinite Freedom???
Rodrigo Padula wrote:
We use the "Infinite Freedom" as slogan, we must follow the recommendations of the FSF, not including non free firmwares.
Like I said FSF has endorsed several distributions which has such firmware in the kernel
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions
We don't have any official slogans for Fedora either FYI. Our freedoms have always been finite.
Rahul
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 06:12 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Rodrigo Padula wrote:
We use the "Infinite Freedom" as slogan, we must follow the recommendations of the FSF, not including non free firmwares.
Like I said FSF has endorsed several distributions which has such firmware in the kernel
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions
We don't have any official slogans for Fedora either FYI. Our freedoms have always been finite.
Exactly. For instance, you're not free to close the source if you redistribute the work. It would be great if contributors could continue to be as sensitive as possible to the danger in propagating unofficial slogans, as catchy as they might sound. Misunderstandings can often result.
Hey Rodrigo, While your input and enthusiasm is appreciated and in the right spirit, I think in this instance you need to take a step back and realize the practicality (or lack thereof) of what you're suggesting. You've been told the current stance on the subject and given a good justification for why it is currently as such, so perhaps we shouldn't push the issue much further. Regards, Steve
On 6/19/07, Rodrigo Padula rodrigopadula@gmail.com wrote:
The question is not purely technique, is philosophical!
The philosophy is the base of our work!
If the Free Software Foundation says that the use of non free firmwares affect our freedom, us must take this in consideration when including this in the distribution.
If the firmware isn't free or "modifiable", if we dont have this permission our freedom is not infinite, it is finite.
I think that firmwares would not have to be distributed in fedora Medias (CDS, DVDS).
We use the "Infinite Freedom" as slogan, we must follow the recommendations of the FSF, not including non free firmwares.
Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira http://www.projetofedora.org
On 6/19/07, Bryan J Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org wrote:
I'll give you a "real world" example that binds companies.
The US FCC, for regulator reasons, does *NOT* want WLAN cards to be reprogrammable to broadcast in other frequencies. This means that at least parts of *ALL* WLAN firmware these days is basically "closed" these days.
From Broadcom to Intel, this is the reality, sorry.
This has been the case since the original Linux firmware tools were developed for the Intersil PRISM*1* cards.
Furthermore, in many other cases, firmware is often *NOT* merely "source code." In many cases and significant portions, it's often pure machine code or other pure byte code, sometimes just binary data/values. Allowing users to tinker with this code leads to massive support issues (even beyond what they can already do with the loader already - which is a support issue).
The Linux community has *NO* business dorking with the firmware logic othat drives the on-device intelligence. Linux only needs to know how to interface with the device, not how to change the device's internal logic. Anyone who knows the first thing about embedded or intelligent hardware device development knows this!
It is *NOT* against the terms of the GPL license, and Linus himself has talked about this repeatedly. We're *NOT* talking about support functions in the Linux kernel itself ( e.g., they are not the same as GPU memory functions, such as those from ATI or nVidia, that go in the kernel itself).
It's gross ignorance and blanket statements like this that make us EEs and other hardware and device friver developers roll our eyes!
Most of the time the "firmware update" option included in the kernel is just an "added option" in a kernel driver so you don't have to boot into DOS. The driver does *NOT* require it to function in Linux at all!
Another example ...
Linux talks to the uC/ASIC on a true hardware RAID card, like the PPC400 on the AMCC/3Ware products. The kernel has *NO* business changing how the on-board PPC400 uses it's memory and it's ATA channels. Linux *NEVER* communications directly to those components (except for DMA as setup by the PPC).
So if you do *NOT* know the first thing of what I'm talking about, you have *NO* business talking about it from the standpoint of ignorance. Leave the legal debate to the sound, technically knowledgable developers who do. Otherwise, you're only going to mis-represent the issue - especially when it's often *NOT* a GPL issue either.
-- Bryan
*1*NOTE: I used to work with Mark Mathews and Brian Mathews at AVS. Brian Mathews (EE) helped develop the PRISM MAC hardware at Intersil. Mark Mathews (CS) developed the original tools for various PRISM functions, including firmware and other frequency support/modification. Many of these functions canNOT be open source because of FCC mandate.
-- Bryan J Smith - mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: "Rodrigo Padula" rodrigopadula@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:46:40 To:"For discussions about marketing and expanding the Fedora user base" fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: Infinite Freedom???
Firmware IS SOFTWARE!! <br><br>firmware = software<br><br>The FSF considers firmware as software.<br><br>If the firmware isnt free, the Fedora isnt FREE!! <br><br>We can't change the firmware, then the firmware isn't FREE!! <br><br>Where are the Infinite Freedom ? Freedom to change the Code, to change the firmware!!<br><br>Please, read this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware ">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware</a> "<b>firmware </b> is software"<br><br><br>Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira<br><a href=" http://www.projetofedora.org">www.projetofedora.org</a><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/19/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Rex Dieter</b> <<a href="mailto:rdieter@math.unl.edu">rdieter@math.unl.edu</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Rodrigo Padula wrote: <br><br>> - FREE SOFTWARE DEFINITION - By Free Software Foundation<br>...<br>> These firmwares below affect us directly, affect our freedom!<br><br>software != firmware.<br><br>The Board's current position is that firmware (that doesn't run on the host <br>CPU) is a reasonable exception (to modifiability). It is our hope that<br>once these ground-rules are established and well understood, hardware<br>manufacturers will be more willing to produce/support high-quality linux <br>drivers (preferably in the upstream kernel).<br><br>-- Rex<br><br>--<br>Fedora-marketing-list mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com ">Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com</a><br><a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list "> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list</a><br></blockquote></div><br>
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
Rodrigo Padula wrote:
If the Free Software Foundation says that the use of non free firmwares affect our freedom, us must take this in consideration when including this in the distribution.
We did.
If the firmware isn't free or "modifiable", if we dont have this permission our freedom is not infinite, it is finite.
...says the person behind a gmail.com address. Please go complain to google, too.
I think that firmwares would not have to be distributed in fedora Medias (CDS, DVDS).
Thanks for your opinion. We disagree.
Ok!!!!
Reading the answers i see how the VOICE of the community is heard and is "very important" in the project!
On 6/20/07, Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com wrote:
Rodrigo Padula wrote:
If the Free Software Foundation says that the use of non free firmwares affect our freedom, us must take this in consideration when including
this
in the distribution.
We did.
If the firmware isn't free or "modifiable", if we dont have this
permission
our freedom is not infinite, it is finite.
...says the person behind a gmail.com address. Please go complain to google, too.
I had problens with my mail server projetofedora.org
I think that firmwares would not have to be distributed in fedora Medias
(CDS, DVDS).
Thanks for your opinion. We disagree.
The FSF disagree of you!
Ok!! Thanks!
Fedora FINITE FREEDOM! "Voice of community"
Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira http://www.projetofedora.org
Rodrigo Padula wrote:
I think that firmwares would not have to be distributed in fedora Medias
(CDS, DVDS).
Thanks for your opinion. We disagree.
The FSF disagree of you!
Do you represent the FSF? If not, please don't make such strong statements on their behalf. We agree with the FSF principles of freedom.
We _also_ have a stance that firmware required to make hardware run is part of the hardware, even if not physically attached to the hardware. There are many reasons for this. Bryan explained it very clearly.
For yet another example, the Cisco Aironet card has one of the best supported wireless drivers in the kernel. However, it requires firmware on the card to perform its wireless functions. It comes pre-loaded on the card so you are set and don't need to do anything to use it. However, if you want to update your firmware, you need to load up a closed-source application that AFAIK only works under Windows.
With the Cisco card, you aren't required to have a "binary blob" on your computer but you can never update your firmware without booting into Windows and using a closed source application.
Does that sound like more freedom to you? It really doesn't to me.
I'm going to shut-up after this.
The voice of the community has a tendency to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's based on majority thought, which is fine for freedom and other social constructs, but not in technical and legal application. I.e., it quickly becomes a prophecy and religion based on the sheer majority over engineers and lawyers. And that can quickly and grossly proliferated by the community, often by even quasi-professionals (e.g., paralegals, not lawyers, including Groklaw most of the time, technicians, not technologists and engineers, etc...).
As an example ... Unlike most people, who grew up on GNU/Linux in the mid-'90s doing web servers, I grew up developing on GNU/Linux - coming from GNU/Solaris host, GNU/VxWorks targets (in addition to Linux NIS, LDAP, Kerberos, Samba, NFS, AFS deployments before the "single-sign-on" buzzword came about). Now what did I use those things for?
I worked on evolutionary defense systems that replaced and improved upon already existing systems." These new systems - strategically referred to as TMD - were PAC-3 and THAAD, which use HTK, which neutralize targets an order of magnitude better than proximity-fuse. Some of you may not know what those acronyms stand for, and I purposely did that for a reason. Because as long as I don't define those acronyms, and you don't know them, you don't have your 0-technical-based opinion.
But the second I define those acronyms into Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3), Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) and Hit-to-Kill (HTK), I'll start getting opinions like ... - I heard hit-to-kill doesn't work - I heard Patriot never hit a single SCUD in the first Iraq war And if I further define their collective, strategic name - even though they are just advanced Surface to Air Missile (SAM) systems for shooting down aircraft., cruise missiles and other airborne targets, They are also capable of "last resort" Theater Missile Defense (TMD), I get all sorts of non-sense like: - The US wants to start a new cold war - The US is threatening the Russians and upsetting the balance in Europe - The US is violating the ABM treaty, etc...
Even before the general W. or US bashing begins. I mean, I didn't even vote for W. and TMD was developed during, and the R&D funded by (including my paycheck), by the Clinton administration. But because people heard "missile defense" - like they do firmware - the go bonkers with 0 technical knowledge,
Now I can't even begin to explain such technical things as ... - How TMD is the natural evolution of air defense and just a more capable SAM system of equal size - PAC-3/THAAD interceptors and their attributes don't even cross into the velocities of what the ABM treaty covers - TMD systems are merely improved, mobile interceptor and sensory (radar) systems of what is already deployed by NATO in Europe - And why we developed HTK, because Patriot did actually intercept, but it's proximity fuse would not neutralize
And that's before we get to the fact that I was one of the engineering schmucks on the target systems, doing telemetry and other things I'm talking about, to verify PAC-3/THAAD intercept and effectiveness. I'm the guy that had to go home at night and here the blatantly incorrect statements from the media.
I mean, ever wonder why NATO has or is deploying PAC-3 and THAAD (or Japan and Korea for that matter)? Ever wonder why *NOT* one single US engineer has ever "whistle-blown" that HTK and TMD doesn't work? Have you ever wondered what the *REAL*, technical details *ARE* of general air-space defense, and why it's not so "unnatural" to be able to obliterate and shred anything that flies through it?
Same deal for "firmware"!!!
It's funny, NASA (of which I've worked on the USAF portions, which I can't talk about), calls "hit-to-kill" something different.
It's called "docking."
Sure, it looks nice and slow on TV - but you don't get to see the closure prior to that at Mach 24. With TMD, we're talking sub-orbital and half to one-third that speed - we just do it in real-time today.
Ignorance goes quite far with the majority, let alone people call me "biased" on firmware because I worked on "missile defense." Just like many non-developers complain I'm "biased" because I work for a client that selfishly sells, what appears to them to be an overpriced, $10,000 VoIP phone. And, therefore, I should have no say, since these people are obvious "less biased" as myself, and I'm just being "arrogant" when I say they have to be knowlegable and experienced in the filed to understand (I don't really care whether they have an EE degree or not, but experienced, yes).
Now don't get me (or anyone in the IEEE for that matter), started on electric or fuel-cell (hydrogen) cars in the US. I mean, I've literally had someone saying they can "chuck big oil, coal, fossil fuels, etc..." and "save the planet" once they buy a new Honda fuel-cell vehicle and the home, hydrogen electolysis unit. Being the "dumber than them" electrical engineer I am, I can't help but ask them, "where do you get that electricity to drive than unit, and how much and what energies do you think are used to generate it?"
Of course, that just gets me into another debate where I'm talking about real power systems and the need to renovate and really, feasinbly "clean" the US power grid (as you'll find 180,000 IEEE-USA members screaming for in every other Spectrum magazine), all while the other person, who I've stupidly tried to educate, screams at me about the tangable "renewable energies" that we stupid engineers won't design and build.
Sorry for the tangent. It's just the story of those with the background and experience to deliver real solutions from those who "know better than us" and think we're wrong, let alone arrogant, when we tell them we're working on a feasible solution, but they won't stop to remotely understand it.
-- Bryan J Smith - mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: "Rodrigo Padula" rodrigopadula@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:58:28 To:"For discussions about marketing and expanding the Fedora user base" fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: Infinite Freedom???
Ok!!!!<br><br><div id="result_box" dir="ltr">Reading the answers i see how the VOICE of the community is heard and is "very important" in the project! </div><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/20/07, <b class="gmail_sendername"> Christopher Aillon</b> <<a href="mailto:caillon@redhat.com">caillon@redhat.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Rodrigo Padula wrote:<br>> If the Free Software Foundation says that the use of non free firmwares<br>> affect our freedom, us must take this in consideration when including this<br>> in the distribution.<br><br> We did.<br><br>> If the firmware isn't free or "modifiable", if we dont have this permission<br>> our freedom is not infinite, it is finite.<br><br>...says the person behind a <a href="http://gmail.com"> gmail.com</a> address. Please go complain to<br>google, too.</blockquote><div><br>I had problens with my mail server <a href="http://projetofedora.org">projetofedora.org</a></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> > I think that firmwares would not have to be distributed in fedora Medias<br>> (CDS, DVDS).<br><br>Thanks for your opinion. We disagree.</blockquote><div><br>The FSF disagree of you!<br><br>Ok!! Thanks!<br><br>Fedora FINITE FREEDOM! "Voice of community" <br><br>Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira<br><a href="http://www.projetofedora.org">http://www.projetofedora.org</a><br></div></div>
Rodrigo Padula wrote:
Ok!!!!
Reading the answers i see how the VOICE of the community is heard and is "very important" in the project!
Rodrigo, Actually... I'd like to thank you for speaking up, especially about something you are clearly passionate about. Just because not everyone agrees with you 100% doesn't mean that you aren't being heard. Please, keep up the good work (and the good fight)!
-- Rex
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Rodrigo Padula wrote:
Ok!!!!
Reading the answers i see how the VOICE of the community is heard and is "very important" in the project!
Rodrigo,
With all due respect, I think you're being a bit melodramatic.
In the end, every project must come up with their own set of "official" policies. No one will *ever* agree with all of them.
But remember this: one of the the biggest reasons for opening ALL of the production tools for F7 was to make it *as easy as possible* for people who disagree with the "official" policy to build their own versions of Fedora.
What does this mean? It means that you, Rodrigo, can build your own version of Fedora that *does not* include the pieces to which you object. And if you submit this version for board approval as an "official" Fedora release, I'm pretty sure you'd get it.
But you have to do the work of maintaining it... and you have to deal with the complaints when other people don't agree with *your* policies. :)
--g
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
But remember this: one of the the biggest reasons for opening ALL of the production tools for F7 was to make it *as easy as possible* for people who disagree with the "official" policy to build their own versions of Fedora.
What does this mean? It means that you, Rodrigo, can build your own version of Fedora that *does not* include the pieces to which you object. And if you submit this version for board approval as an "official" Fedora release, I'm pretty sure you'd get it.
But you have to do the work of maintaining it... and you have to deal with the complaints when other people don't agree with *your* policies. :)
In fact... and sorry to expand on my own point...
This is, in fact, an *extremely important freedom* that we're talking about here. I've been in the Fedora leadership for a long time now, and we've made decisions that even *I* disagree with.
For what it's worth, I will *encourage* people to make their own versions of Fedora that adhere to *their* standards of what Fedora should and shouldn't be. And we let the Marketplace of Users decide.
--g
On 6/20/07, Greg Dekoenigsberg gdk@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
But remember this: one of the the biggest reasons for opening ALL of the production tools for F7 was to make it *as easy as possible* for people
who
disagree with the "official" policy to build their own versions of
Fedora.
What does this mean? It means that you, Rodrigo, can build your own
version
of Fedora that *does not* include the pieces to which you object. And if
you
submit this version for board approval as an "official" Fedora release,
I'm
pretty sure you'd get it.
But you have to do the work of maintaining it... and you have to deal
with
the complaints when other people don't agree with *your* policies. :)
In fact... and sorry to expand on my own point...
This is, in fact, an *extremely important freedom* that we're talking about here. I've been in the Fedora leadership for a long time now, and we've made decisions that even *I* disagree with.
For what it's worth, I will *encourage* people to make their own versions of Fedora that adhere to *their* standards of what Fedora should and shouldn't be. And we let the Marketplace of Users decide.
I am thinking about this. Create one Brazilian spin !
Thanks to all for the attention!
Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira www.projetofedora.org
Rodrigo Padula wrote:
On 6/20/07, *Greg Dekoenigsberg* <gdk@redhat.com For what it's worth, I will *encourage* people to make their own versions of Fedora that adhere to *their* standards of what Fedora should and shouldn't be. And we let the Marketplace of Users decide.
I am thinking about this. Create one Brazilian spin !
So, while you're thinking, you may come up with some questions. Don't hesitate and ask, drop me an off-list message or something. I'll be glad to help you do a localized, brazilian "100% Free Fedora" spin including the Live media.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 14:58 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
And if you submit this version for board approval as an "official" Fedora release, I'm pretty sure you'd get it.
Who should actually approve different spins as being "Formally Fedora"?
/me likes the audio pun in that title, and it is more accurate than the abused word 'official'
I'll be honest -- I don't mind that there be a Board rubber stamp [Formally Fedora Spin], but it needs to be just that -- a rubber stamp approval on top of a recommendation from a group of people who can actually vet the individual distro.
Perhaps I see a flood of such requests. Perhaps I personally fear the work of figuring out how to automate the testing of such requests.
Based on the new understanding of the Board's role, shouldn't it be the Board says, "Fedora needs to formally recognize new community-sourced spins that are within Fedora guidelines," and FESCo makes it so? Presumably by firing up a SIG, modifying some build sys magic, and so forth.
- Karsten
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Karsten Wade wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 14:58 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
And if you submit this version for board approval as an "official" Fedora release, I'm pretty sure you'd get it.
Who should actually approve different spins as being "Formally Fedora"?
The Board. And if it turns out to be more than The Board can handle, then The Board, in their Infinite Wisdom, can figure out a Better Way To Do It.
Based on the new understanding of the Board's role, shouldn't it be the Board says, "Fedora needs to formally recognize new community-sourced spins that are within Fedora guidelines," and FESCo makes it so? Presumably by firing up a SIG, modifying some build sys magic, and so forth.
If The Board wants to delegate that authority to FESCo, so be it. But it seems that these decisions live more in the world of policy than in technology.
--g
Karsten Wade wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 14:58 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
And if you submit this version for board approval as an "official" Fedora release, I'm pretty sure you'd get it.
Who should actually approve different spins as being "Formally Fedora"?
/me likes the audio pun in that title, and it is more accurate than the abused word 'official'
I'll be honest -- I don't mind that there be a Board rubber stamp [Formally Fedora Spin], but it needs to be just that -- a rubber stamp approval on top of a recommendation from a group of people who can actually vet the individual distro.
Perhaps I see a flood of such requests. Perhaps I personally fear the work of figuring out how to automate the testing of such requests.
Based on the new understanding of the Board's role, shouldn't it be the Board says, "Fedora needs to formally recognize new community-sourced spins that are within Fedora guidelines," and FESCo makes it so? Presumably by firing up a SIG, modifying some build sys magic, and so forth.
- Karsten
This is not a bad idea at all. I'd gladly volunteer for such a SIG.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 13:58 -0300, Rodrigo Padula wrote:
Ok!!!!
Reading the answers i see how the VOICE of the community is heard and is "very important" in the project!
Obviously the voice of the community is very important to Fedora. Do you agree? Or is the above a bit of sarcasm? If so, I'm sure we'd all like to hear how you feel the voice of the community is treated in Fedora.
In this case, members of the same community as you have spoken up and explained the reasons why things are as they are. Thanks, folks. I trust these community voices more than I do Wikipedia.
The FSF disagree of you!
I think it was pointed out a few times in this thread that it is not entirely clear what the FSF agrees to.
We are all constantly in murky waters, trying to see together the right direction to swim. This includes the FSF. They are not dieties, not even Enlightened. They just have a nice, bright, clear light that helps us see the way. But it is not the only light, nor always the best one to pay attention to when swimming.
- Karsten, hoping his swimming metaphor didn't lose any non-native speakers
On 6/20/07, Karsten Wade kwade@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 13:58 -0300, Rodrigo Padula wrote:
Ok!!!!
Reading the answers i see how the VOICE of the community is heard and is "very important" in the project!
Obviously the voice of the community is very important to Fedora. Do you agree? Or is the above a bit of sarcasm? If so, I'm sure we'd all like to hear how you feel the voice of the community is treated in Fedora.
I Agree!! I'm a brazilian voice, with bad english here! hehehe
In this case, members of the same community as you have spoken up and
explained the reasons why things are as they are. Thanks, folks. I trust these community voices more than I do Wikipedia.
The FSF disagree of you!
I think it was pointed out a few times in this thread that it is not entirely clear what the FSF agrees to.
We are all constantly in murky waters, trying to see together the right direction to swim. This includes the FSF. They are not dieties, not even Enlightened. They just have a nice, bright, clear light that helps us see the way. But it is not the only light, nor always the best one to pay attention to when swimming.
- Karsten, hoping his swimming metaphor didn't lose any non-native
speakers
Thinking in Fedora 8, what will be made in this direction ?? It would be very interesting if firmwares was isolated in optional packages(intel wi-fi drivers and firmwares), becoming the images of fedora 100% free.
Or, why not a Fedora Spin 100% Free ?
My $0,02
Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira Brazilian Fedora Ambassador www.projetofedora.org
Rodrigo Padula wrote:
Thinking in Fedora 8, what will be made in this direction ?? It would be very interesting if firmwares was isolated in optional packages(intel wi-fi drivers and firmwares), becoming the images of fedora 100% free.
Or, why not a Fedora Spin 100% Free ?
Sure. Do you want to do it? can you explain on what you consider 100% Free? It is just software or do you want to remove content which isn't modifiable including documentation, fonts, images etc.
Note that Fedora has trademarked content which aren't modifiable either.
Rahul
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Or, why not a Fedora Spin 100% Free ?
Sure. Do you want to do it? can you explain on what you consider 100% Free? It is just software or do you want to remove content which isn't modifiable including documentation, fonts, images etc.
Note that Fedora has trademarked content which aren't modifiable either.
Unless you make a spin that doesn't have that trademarked content, of course. Which is also (a) possible and (b) encouraged.
We still haven't figured out what exact language we should be using to describe the relationship between Fedora and such a distribution -- but I'd like to see some test cases to help us figure it out.
--g
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Rodrigo Padula wrote:
Thinking in Fedora 8, what will be made in this direction ?? It would be very interesting if firmwares was isolated in optional packages(intel wi-fi drivers and firmwares), becoming the images of fedora 100% free.
Or, why not a Fedora Spin 100% Free ?
Sure. Do you want to do it? can you explain on what you consider 100% Free? It is just software or do you want to remove content which isn't modifiable including documentation, fonts, images etc.
Note that Fedora has trademarked content which aren't modifiable either.
Sounds like nothing more then a use case to me ;-)
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
On 6/20/07, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Rodrigo Padula wrote:
Thinking in Fedora 8, what will be made in this direction ?? It would be very interesting if firmwares was isolated in optional packages(intel wi-fi drivers and firmwares), becoming the images of fedora 100% free.
Or, why not a Fedora Spin 100% Free ?
Sure. Do you want to do it? can you explain on what you consider 100% Free? It is just software or do you want to remove content which isn't modifiable including documentation, fonts, images etc.
Note that Fedora has trademarked content which aren't modifiable either.
Rahul
Remove non free firmwares from fedora packages and kernel!
But it's only a idea!
I have many extra work organizing Brazilian Fedora Project, spreading fedora, presenting lectures and events around Brazil, helping members of the Latin America countries, attending Brazilian Free Media Project and enlisting local collaborators!
I have worked to make fedora one of the used linux distributions in Brazil.
Here, we have big cases of use of Fedora.
- Universities (Hundreds servers and workstations with fedora core 4,5,6) - Brazilian Armys (Hundreds servers and workstations with fedora core 5,6) - SERPRO (More than 8.000 workstations with fedora core 5, 6) - Hosting/Access/Mail Servers ( UAI ESTADO DE MINAS - 150 fedora servers)
and many others....
The fedora is a great success here in Brazil, us has made a great work here!
Thanks!!!
Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira
Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira
Rodrigo Padula wrote:
On 6/20/07, *Rahul Sundaram* <sundaram@fedoraproject.org mailto:sundaram@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Rodrigo Padula wrote: > Thinking in Fedora 8, what will be made in this direction ?? > It would be very interesting if firmwares was isolated in optional > packages(intel wi-fi drivers and firmwares), becoming the images of > fedora 100% free. > > Or, why not a Fedora Spin 100% Free ? Sure. Do you want to do it? can you explain on what you consider 100% Free? It is just software or do you want to remove content which isn't modifiable including documentation, fonts, images etc. Note that Fedora has trademarked content which aren't modifiable either. Rahul
Remove non free firmwares from fedora packages and kernel!
Removing firmware outside of the kernel is easy. Removing kernel in the firmware is going to be difficult but you or whoever wants to drive such a effort can probably get in touch with gNewSense folks to coordinate the effort. If there is a real need for it someone should step up to it. Let's see if that happens.
Rahul
I tried to be nice in my first response, making a suggestion for consideration by the board. Technical feasibility, after redistribution and related indemnification issues, is the priority before we put philosophy in front of simple, GPL compatible bundling.
But after that, and I have to apologize for sometimes being "blunt" in my use of the word "ignorant," I sometimes like (too much) to be that "outsider" (non-Red Hat employee, non-Fedora participant, nor any other "stakeholder") that just tells it that way.
Which drove my 2nd/3rd posts, especially when someone tries to tell me - an unmentionable, mediocre EE and otherwise insigniciant embedded developer, but still someone who is remotely knowlegeable of microcontroller/ASIC programming and toolchains - what exactly the "absolute" or, worse yet, "assumed" stance of the FSF is on this.
We're not talking about drivers and code like ATI's and nVidia's memory management to do software (I.e., Linux kernel) based GPU-CPU coherency (at least on Intel bus/single point of contention interconnects without on CPU-GPU I/O MMUs, something Intel itself won't GPL either and leaves out of their i8xx/9xx series kernel suppoert much to the piss-poor performance of their Linux GLX v. Windows ICD - all while holding the IP that prevents ATI/nVidia from opening theirs - nVidia did a partial code release back in 2.2 for XFree86 3.3 to no joy of Intel lawyers). And we're not talking about the drivers for software that Linux uses to drive the device itself.
We're either talking about the on-hardware (system-updated) or shared memory (system-hosted) byte code that drives non-x86/host-platform microcontroller/ASICs. Things that won't build with the binutils, GCC and other "toolchain" components in virtually any distro (ansd variations in peripherals in various core-based instances will still differ for the "base" toolchain of any target for various hardware).
So, again, if you're not following these concepts, it's best if you make no assumptions. Especially when the complexities of the arguments differ enough, but are often still allowed by the GPL or Linus' (among others) clear, legal-based statements on copyrights. There are bigger and better targets to point your finger at, which are actual GPL issues in the kernel.
-- Bryan J Smith - mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:09:35 To:b.j.smith@ieee.org, For discussions about marketing and expanding the Fedora user base fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: Infinite Freedom???
Bryan J Smith wrote:
[...]
+1,
*applause*
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
Bryan J Smith wrote:
I tried to be nice in my first response, making a suggestion for consideration by the board. Technical feasibility, after redistribution and related indemnification issues, is the priority before we put philosophy in front of simple, GPL compatible bundling.
An absolutely reasonable suggestion. As a matter of fact, the Board considered that initially, but opted not to separate this content over concerns of simply not identifying any significant justification/payoff (and not having the time to implement in time for F7 either).
-- Rex
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org