A "Large Hardware Vendor" Wants A EULA Displayed For Firmware Updates On Linux

[ThoreauHD]

They won't be a large hardware vendor for long if they keep fking with scalability.

[herman]

I'm glad this is a community discussion. While it's interesting to speculate who is making this request, it ultimately doesn't matter. If one company is given the green light to do this, then all companies will have the same green light.

I can see both sides. Everyone wants more firmware support on Linux, but if saying yes means constant EULAs popping up, then people won't be happy. My position is a "polite no." Many companies have managed to get proprietary firmware on Linux without this policy. If the unnamed company is serious enough to work with Linux, then they should be able to find reasonable ground without the need for this.

Just my 2 cents!

[chithanh]

My guess is that the "Large Hardware Vendor" it is one of the big PC OEMs.
NVidia I consider less likely, they can just distribute firmware updates as part of their driver package, so why would they go to LVFS.

It's fine by me..... I mean, we all lose if LVFS doesn't accept it. Getting it accepted, and "gaining" a command line switch or something to automate the thing, users have a choice. Having a choice is better than nothing at all.

Until you entertain the slippery slope argument.

Once EULA screens are adopted into LVFS for one vendor, other vendors will notice too and ask for the same. Before long, a major part of LVFS will be plastered with EULA screens, and it will only get worse.

[DanL]

NVidia I consider less likely, they can just distribute firmware updates as part of their driver package, so why would they go to LVFS.

They already do that. We're talking about separate firmware blobs for nouveau. But again, they don't offer those for download on their site, so an EULA is probably not the sole/main blocker. I don't think it's Nvidia.

[horizonbrave]

large as in fat?

[CommunityMember]

Thinking some more, I would not be surprised to learn that it's MSI.

It could be, but, of course, had you carefully looked at the photo (with all the MSI mainboards), and with the LVFS vendor list, you see MSI is already making (at least some) firmware available via LVFS. Which suggests otherwise.

BIOS flashing is something few mainboard vendors consider a competitive advantage (they mostly consider it a PITA to distribute flashers that will work on all their customers OS's). That is almost certainly why Dell, HP, and Lenovo are significant participants in LVFS (look at the numbers of mainboards already supported).

And, remember, CPU and GPU microcode is not generally not flashed (it is dynamically loaded at each power on), so neither a CPU or GPU vendor is the most likely suspect. Peripheral solution vendors (think USB, WiFi, SAS/SCSI add in cards) are, to me, the more likely "Large Hardware Vendor".

[creoflux]

I have never felt, you know what this is missing a EULA.

English-only is a problem as well IMO.

[DanL]

I have never felt, you know what this is missing a EULA.

That's because you're not a lawyer.

[You-]

NVidia I consider less likely, they can just distribute firmware updates as part of their driver package, so why would they go to LVFS.

The hints seem to make them the main candidate consiering the responses to tweets about it being a particular pain point or linux users.

Probably not for their graphis card firmware though. (I just hopetheir attempt to buy ARM fails, as that could become one spectacular disaster)

[geearf]

With Mr Vetter saying he knows that vendor very very well, I assume it is Intel.