Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264100AbTICQx0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 12:53:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264117AbTICQx0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 12:53:26 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:52671 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264100AbTICQxY (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 12:53:24 -0400 Message-ID: <3F561BE4.7090806@pobox.com> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 12:50:44 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik Organization: none User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021213 Debian/1.2.1-2.bunk X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jt@hpl.hp.com CC: Linux kernel mailing list , Marcel Holtmann , Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: request_firmware() backport to 2.4 References: <20030902192043.GD22376@bougret.hpl.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <20030902192043.GD22376@bougret.hpl.hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1587 Lines: 46 Jean Tourrilhes wrote: > Marcelo wrote : > >>On 1 Sep 2003, Marcel Holtmann wrote: >> >> >>>no, the bfubase.frm is the original firmware file from AVM. This file >>>have to be placed somewhere on the filesystem. >> >>Right, and without placing the file somewhere on the filesystem bfusb >>2.4.22 users wont have 2.4.23 working without "issues". > > > But various high level kernel people, such as Jeff, have > decided that binary firmwares *must* be removed from the kernel > because of legal "issues" (GPL == source available). In 2.6.X, it > seems that the tolerance towards this "issue" will end, so all those > nasty details will have to work. Well, I wouldn't put it that strongly. It's more like, at least in my own case, the Debian people make a stink about the legality of non-GPL'd firmwares. And certain people, and at certain times, have refused patches related to legality of firmwares. AND, on top of all that, as a programmer I hate seeing these ugly BLOBs embedded in C code, and would much rather see them removed from the C source code. So, I "prefer" that firmware leaves the kernel, but that's just my personal opinion. There has been no decision made AFAIK, and I don't recall Marcelo or Linus speaking definitively on the subject. > Of course, 2.4.X is more "don't rock the boat". Agreed... Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/