Identi.ca Identi.ca
  • Login
  • Public

    • Public
    • Groups
    • Featured
    • Popular

Conversation

Notices

  1. Andrew Lindley Andrew Lindley Alexandre Oliva , Jason Self

    @lxoliva What @jxself refers to is that Linux-libre deblobbing has now gone beyond removing firmware and into CPU microcode patches...

    about a year ago from Choqok at West Yorkshire, England, United Kingdom
    • Jason Self Jason Self Alexandre Oliva

      @leny2010 - Just to be clear, I don't disagree with how the kernel is deblobbed. I only said that complaints should go to @lxoliva not me :)

      about a year ago
    • Jason Self Jason Self Jason Self

      @leny2010 I noticed that Coreboot also contains such things. We really need someone to make a Coreboot-libre without them. cc: @lxolivia

      about a year ago
    • Andrew Lindley Andrew Lindley Alexandre Oliva , Jason Self

      @jxself @lxoliva I have no problem with removing firmware http://ur1.ca/9fnbh as per the guidelines. They don't say http://ur1.ca/9fnbx

      about a year ago
    • Andrew Lindley Andrew Lindley Alexandre Oliva , Jason Self

      @jxself @lxoliva if you intend leaving out cpu microcode you will have to make libre gcc first. So your code avoids the CPU bugs caused.

      about a year ago
    • Andrew Lindley Andrew Lindley Alexandre Oliva , Jason Self

      @jxself @lxoliva I should also say that as far as I'm aware these cpu patches are the only instance of true microprograms in x86 kernels

      about a year ago
    • Jason Self Jason Self

      @leny2010 Different terminology. That updates are released and can change CPU behavior makes it more like software than hardware I think.

      about a year ago
    • Andrew Lindley Andrew Lindley Jason Self

      @jxself No chip desinger would agree. Technically it is not software, therefore not firmware, which is all the guidelines cover.

      about a year ago
    • Andrew Lindley Andrew Lindley Jason Self

      @jxself You are implicitly trying to extend the software freedoms to another [related] field.

      about a year ago
    • Andrew Lindley Andrew Lindley Jason Self

      My opinion is that just as the software freedoms do not extend to artwork, they do not extend to microprograms.

      about a year ago
    • Andrew Lindley Andrew Lindley Jason Self

      @jxself In the sense that free microprograms are a separate issue that is not within l-libre's remit.

      about a year ago
    • Alexandre Oliva Alexandre Oliva

      @leny2010 CPU microcode is code that programs hw to behave as an x86*; how's that difft from controlling disks, radios, etc?

      about a year ago
    • Alexandre Oliva Alexandre Oliva

      @leny2010 I provided you with neither the defective CPU nor the non-Free patch for it; Linux-libre doesn't need fixing in this regard

      about a year ago
    • Alexandre Oliva Alexandre Oliva

      @leny2010 as for patching CPU bugs, if your CPU worked before the microcode loader was even there, what are you complaining about?

      about a year ago
    • Alexandre Oliva Alexandre Oliva

      @leny2010 GCC has a long history of accepting changes to compensate for bugs in various CPUs; there's nothing -libre-specific about it

      about a year ago
    • Alexandre Oliva Alexandre Oliva

      @leny2010 cpu microcode is not in linux; intel microcode has shipped separately under nonfree licenses forever; same with amd now

      about a year ago
    • Andrew Lindley Andrew Lindley Alexandre Oliva

      @lxoliva That you are going beyond the remit of the Free Dist Guidelines, beyond software into what is hardware - microprograms

      about a year ago
    • Alexandre Oliva Alexandre Oliva

      @leny2010 if the FSDG explicitly mentions nonfree microcode as acceptable, I'll change Linux-libre, so pls write to FSDG authors

      about a year ago
    • Alexandre Oliva Alexandre Oliva

      @leny2010 now, I'm pretty sure you won't get such a change in, because I know where we draw the line, and that's what I implemented

      about a year ago
    • Andrew Lindley Andrew Lindley Alexandre Oliva

      @lxoliva OK. Thanks for your time.

      about a year ago
    • Andrew Lindley Andrew Lindley Alexandre Oliva , Jason Self

      @jxself @lxoliva After chking I find AMD are = licensing auto parts under copyright with those patches. Legal status overides my point

      about a year ago
    • Andrew Lindley Andrew Lindley Alexandre Oliva , Jason Self

      @jxself @lxoliva Thanks again for your time

      about a year ago
    • Andrew Lindley Andrew Lindley Alexandre Oliva , Jason Self

      @jxself @lxoliva As in I'm noy going to disagree with you that it's software. Then go and agree with an AMD license saying it is.

      about a year ago
    • Alexandre Oliva Alexandre Oliva

      @leny2010 :-) thanks :-)

      about a year ago

Site notice

Identi.ca is converting to pump.io on 1 June 2013

Feeds

  • Activity Streams
  • RSS 2.0
  • Atom
  • Help
  • About
  • FAQ
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • Source
  • Version
  • Contact

Identi.ca is a microblogging service brought to you by E14N. It runs the StatusNet microblogging software, version 1.1.0-release, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 All Identi.ca content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.

Switch to mobile site layout.

Built in Montreal