Debian riscv64

> User modifiable firmware is the same thing as the power boosting potentiometer.

It's a third party modification to the device. Why is it any different than any other modification to the device that could make it non-compliant? Why does the OEM have to prevent the user from modifying the device in this way -- notably by also preventing them from modifying it in many ways that aren't a compliance issue, which is by far the more common reason to modify the firmware -- but not prevent them from modifying it with a screw driver or a soldering iron?

> It doesn't matter what you think the law should be

It matters what people think the law should be because when regulators set policy that causes widespread security vulnerabilities in common consumer devices, we get to apply pressure to them using every means at our disposal until they do better.

> The FCC as a regulatory body doesn't care about FOSS

Regulatory bodies have to care about anyone they negatively impact who can marshal enough support to make them feel pressure. "Open source" is a lot of people, and a lot of major companies. Right to repair has seen some significant legislative support.

> they care about keeping an easy to over exploit shared resource continue to have significant and extremely profitable use.

Which user-modifiable firmware is no more a threat to than any other modification the user might make to the hardware, or for that matter the widespread availability of hardware you're intended to need a license to operate even though anybody who doesn't care about breaking the law can still buy it and use it.

> But they don't exist for no reason and didn't just appear overnight to inconvenience FOSS enthusiasts.

I don't think they exist for no reason. I think the OEMs like rules like that because they can point to it as the fig leaf for not allowing users to continue to maintain their own devices after the OEM stops supporting them, or add software features they would otherwise reserve to a more expensive model, because the OEMs would prefer that you buy a new one instead, or pay more. And that kind of regulatory capture causes me to advocate for its removal.

Being open one point in time doesn't mean it will stay forever like that, point 1.

Point 2, it was there first.

> shouldn't have to pay for the IP that they use

They don't want actual ARM IP. They only want the ISA. Its questionable if ISA design should be protected.

To get an architectural license its millions, do you think its reasonable to pay millions just for an ISA specification?

And even with that specification, there would be lots of restrictions still.

Listen to Jim Keller on the topic, there are also other issues with how slow developments are. Lots of companies are already out with accelerators that don't even have an official ARM spec yet.

> Sure RISC-V is great in many, many ways but having the 64-bit Arm ISA ready for Apple to use in (checks notes) 2013 has been fundamental to them building their multi-trillion dollar business. Getting that ISA ready cost real money.

That's nice and all for ARM and Apple.

But now we are in the future where an open standard exists. Once you move to an open standard you don't go back very often.

It has nothing to do with dreams. I have an open hardware product with a RISC-V CPU on my desk right now. And its nice to have. I don't give a single shit if some random device from Media Market is open. The device I have provides real value to me now and that is a good thing.

The idea that things are only relevant when media market costumers can buy them is just sad and depressive.

Have you ever used the rocket core generator?

There's a reason people pay for ARM tools. There's a reason people pay SiFive and StarFive to use the rocket core generator for them. (heck, there's a reason I still use WDC65C02's in new designs.)

While I'm generally a fan of open source software, open source hardware is a different beast. The cost of copying an open source hardware design is noticeably higher than the cost of copying open source software.

You always pay for what you get. If you're lucky, you pay in cash.