Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754470AbXIMNR5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:17:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754004AbXIMNRs (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:17:48 -0400 Received: from allen.werkleitz.de ([80.190.251.108]:42162 "EHLO allen.werkleitz.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753972AbXIMNRr (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:17:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:40:34 +0200 From: Johannes Stezenbach To: Markus Rechberger Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?D=E2niel?= Fraga , video4linux-list@redhat.com, linux-dvb@linuxtv.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20070913124034.GA26972@linuxtv.org> References: <46C1BCC5.9090709@amd.com> <1189626560.5160.57.camel@gaivota> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 84.190.150.24 Subject: Re: [linux-dvb] [PATCH] Userspace tuner X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:23:22 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on allen.werkleitz.de) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1373 Lines: 33 On Thu, Sep 13, 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > We currently have an implementation that works, although > it works by downloading several firmwares for several devices > or even several countries. This is not what I want to have in > future since it's not needed and it's also hard to manage for > distributors. All those differences could be adjusted by > software even without module parameter hacks. This argument doesn't hold water. The unpleasant point for users and distributors isn't the "binary-only" thing, it's the "no right to distribute" problem. And that's the same for firmware blobs or binary-only userspace blobs. IOW, if you can get the right to redistribute a binary-only userspace blob which incudes the firmware inside, why shouldn't you be able to get the right to redistribute just the firmware? Or the other way round: Do you think your binary-only software will be important enough so distributors will go through all the trouble of trying to get a license to include it in their distribution? If so, why wouldn't they do the same for the plain firmware blobs for in-kernel drivers? Johannes - 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/