4 ms·

Okay, but you could release the source code for the firmware, and only accept a signed binary blob. This would still be open source (GPL v2 compliant, but not v

Okay, but you could release the source code for the firmware, and only accept a signed binary blob. This would still be open source (GPL v2 compliant, but not v3 AFAIK) and auditable, but it still be conforming and certifiable.

giantrobot 3y ago
And some manufacturers do just that. Many do not because they're sub-licensing components/code from other companies. Others don't because they want to license their hardware to others and firmware source is a special sauce when the functions of the radio are all in software.
pabs3 3y ago
This is what the Intel Sound "open" Firmware does, and it is incredibly annoying. https://github.com/thesofproject/sof/issues/5814 https://github.com/thesofproject/sof/issues/5814 I don't think that would be GPLv2 compliant either: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t...