On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Solomon Peachy <pizza(a)shaftnet.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:19:07PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> Still not reasonable for Fedora, I think. Red Hat, and RHEL, can
> manage registered licensing to build this binary blob. But binary
> blobs with no tool chain to build htem?
So it's okay to ship opaque-but-redistributable binary blobs that don't
run on the host CPU (aka device firmware) without any source code (much
less a toolchain that can build it), but shipping something that comes
with fully redistributable (if not outright Free) source code is bad
because there's no Free toolchain to compile it? That doesn't make
sense.
I'm just trying to understand how FPGA "firmware" is any different than
regular device firmware, and how having source code code available
suddenly turns something from okay to include into something we can't.
- Solomon
I detest both. Rechecking the published standard at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Binary_Firmware, it
doesn't specifically list "must be compilable by Fedora developers
with Fedora tools", so you've a point.
It's still making me hold my nose and go "eewwww".