DABUSB firmware source code has been released this week
juca at members.fsf.org
Tue Jan 4 00:08:33 UTC 2011
> If one of them is definitely Free, then it would be nice for Linux-libre
> to stop disabling the request for it, and maybe to keep the binary file
> (depending on the license). But I'm still not sure: are the sources you
> got the corresponding sources for the binary in the Linux tree?
>> This out-of-tree code is from 2010 and is said to work with the device
>> while the mainline tree code is 10 years old.
> Well, then now I know, it's not corresponding sources, and the version
> in Linux remains non-Free.
> Now, once there are source and binary in say the linux-firmware
> repository, under a suitable Free Software license, I'd probably change
> the request so it's not disabled any more.
>> The only practical thing to do is to get their new driver code into
> Oh, the updated firmware file requires a new driver, too? If that's
> true, the right thing to do would be to treat the request for the old
> firmware like the request for any other non-Free firmware file.
well I think there is a lot of confusion here!
The mainline tree dabusb driver code is outdated: it supports only the
prototype of the device when it was in development 10 years ago. The
out-of-tree dabusb driver code is required for controlling the
commercial device sold by Terratec (DRBox1).
I still haven't checked whether the released dabusb firmware source
code corresponds to the firmware image that is currently requested. I
think it is **possible** (although improbable) that the firmware might
have been kept the same as the one used 10 years ago. I am trying to
build the firmware now from source in order to compare the results to
the currently requested binary file.
I have already done this kind of work with the keyspan/xircom firmware
source codes. More about this topic in another email thread to avoid
More information about the linux-libre