Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

ariadne.space

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 205 posts

Re: The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

#181

Post by jimmyvalmer »

idontcareabout wrote: post #102
BrS96bVxXBLzf5B wrote: post #74

Attending an RMS talk at a university ~8 years ago, some (increasingly irritated) lecturers questioned him on the use of proprietary graphics drivers in image processing for use in medical equipment and research. While RMS argued his absolute stance that proprietary drivers are never permissible, the lecturers argued that the drivers were literally saving lives and people would die without them. "They should die for…

why would life saving equipment be permitted to be proprietary in the first place. how many people have died because they could not access it. you speak as if proprietary causes no harm.

how many people have died because they could not access it.

It's only in the last hundred years that one's health couldn't be discussed in a transactional quid pro quo. Both humankind (300,000 years) and evolving life (3.5B years) never held that stipulation.

Re: The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

#182

Post by jimmyvalmer »

marcan_42 wrote: post #107
r283492 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you try to pin down someone on the fly who is publicly advocating for something on what exceptions are ok, expect them to be stubborn. But there is a lot of pragmatism at work. It's why we have the LGPL, GPL, and AGPL. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.en.html

Ah yes, the AGPL. The license that wants to be an EULA (because that's the only way you can actually close the SaaS loophole), but can't, because being an EULA would be against the FSF's core values (Freeedom Zero), so instead it's a cute hack that is trivial to work around if you want to, while simultaneously being almost impossible to comply with for regular developers. And then the FSF plays it like it has EULA po…

No post body was provided.

Re: The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

#183

Post by yxhuvud »

csande17 wrote: post #117
comex wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If this is possible, then device makers should do it, ship the free-software firmware on the device, and then get it RYF-certified. No blobs needed, ROM or otherwise! Problem solved! The device maker could ship with programmable proprietary firmware and have the possibility of being RYF-certified in the future if someone writes free firmware. Or they could ship with proprietary firmware in ROM and be guaranteed RYF…

It sure sucks that device makers just have to wait and hope someone writes free firmware. If only they had some way to cause the firmware to be written, perhaps involving things like "money" or "employees" or "contracts with vendors". The alternatives to this policy are allowing all blobs, in which case the RYF certification isn't actually verifying anything, or not allowing any blobs, in which case RYF cannot certif…

No, the alternative is to not be a binary yes or no certification, but to construct a nonbinary scale to measure how free it is.

Re: The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

#184

Post by chii »

_ph_ wrote: post #145
chii wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are you the bad guy for not surrendering? those peasants who died are killed by the feudal lord, so no - 100% not the bad guy for fighting. The only way you could be considered a bad guy is if you used peasants as suicide bombers - and only if those people didn't volunteer.

I disagree to the blanket form of statement. Yes, it is the feudal lord who does the killing, but that doesn't mean there is no guilt if your actions effectively lead to the named peasants are killed. Whether one shares some guilt by the actions has to be judged in each case separately.

> doesn't mean there is no guilt if your actions effectively lead to the named peasants are killed.

but it's not a law of physics that the feudal lord kills a peasant - they did it by choice. This is what absolves the rebels from any guilt of the deaths. The rebels, a priori, believes that their rebellion is just, and therefore, by definition it cannot be morally wrong. It's not their fault if the feudal lord decides to do something morally wrong, based on any reason (including to extort the rebels).

This is different from a case where actions of the rebel directly lead to deaths of peasants - for example, bombing the residence of the feudal lord which causes collateral damage. In this case, the action must be judged individually.

Re: The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

#187

Post by giantrobot »

dvdkhlng wrote: post #160
kmeisthax wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So first off, putting something in mask ROM[0] does not make it equivalent to a circuit. Circuits cannot be copyrighted[1] but mask ROM programs can be; meaning the latter is just as non-Free as rewritable software. It is legally silly to distinguish between read-only and rewritable software, even if it might have a small engineering upside of prohibiting the imposition of new antifeatures. That doesn't mean that mas…

> Also, the fact that it's not rewritable means that... > 1. Security bugs[2] will never be fixed[3], rendering the hardware unsafe to use over time. But on the other hand: security bugs will never be introduced post-manufacturing. Additional DRM cannot be forced onto you, after you bought the product. Or: DRM bugs that allow you to fully use your hardware cannot later be patched by the vendor.

Without the source there could be all sorts of timebombs or tripwires in the firmware. For instance a device refusing to operate unless another device was present or changing behavior after a certain date.

Re: The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

#188

Post by giantrobot »

thrwawy283 wrote: post #45
giantrobot wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why accuse the FSF of hypocrisy? If I ship some piece of hardware on a PC with its firmware burned into a ROM and do not provide the source (a binary blob), the FSF will happily say my hardware is RYF-certified. If I ship the exact same hardware with the exact same firmware as a binary blob but in Flash RAM or loaded at init by a driver they'll accuse me of not "respecting freedom". Same hardware. Same firmware. Sa…

I just wanted to say I appreciated this comment. You clearly condensed what the problem is, and now I feel like I better understand the situation. It does sound like hypocrisy but in an unworkable, non-starting situation for the FSF. (Bravo.)

Thanks. I understand what the FSF is trying to do. I just think they've gone about it in a stupid way. I see it as an outgrowth if Stallman's old "microwave argument".

He is super zealous about using free software everywhere...until he isn't. His argument being that something like a microwave, despite having some non-Free software, isn't something that can be changed post-sale so he's ok using them.

1. It's actually an outdated example since we're now seeing appliances with Internet connectivity and EULAs.

2. It breaks down almost immediately with modern computer hardware. We're not running big beige towers whose only connectivity is some RS323 ports on the back. Most people are running computers with multiple highly regulated radios, internal batteries, and security subsystems. Fully user programmable functions of these are combinations of impractical, dangerous, and illegal.

I still donate every year to the FSF but these crusades just make me slap my forehead. They're feel good campaigns and encourage more harm than good.

Re: The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

#189

Post by BrS96bVxXBLzf5B »

thewakalix wrote: post #131
KennyBlanken wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't get what they're saying at all. There are about a thousand better ways he could have responded while still trying to convey his ideas. Instead, he said probably the single most offensive thing he could. He either did it on purpose to piss them off, or he didn't understand how offensive it would be, or he didn't care. He has no idea how to be persuasive, no idea how to adjust his arguments or present his ide…

Did he really say those specific words? It's common, on the internet, to use quotation marks to signify "here's what I think someone else is saying, it's not my own belief". (That is also an example of such a usage.)

He said those exact words and despite the responses I wasn't trying to remark on his words, only pass along a small moment many of us there found memorable and funny.

Re: The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

#190

Post by fsflover »

giantrobot wrote: post #13
MathMonkeyMan wrote: post #3

I'm well out of my realm of expertise here, but I had a gut reaction to: > Libreboot, being FSF-recommended, also has this policy of disallowing firmware blobs in the source tree, despite it being a source of nothing but problems. Later the author points out how there isn't any contemporary libre hardware that would satisfy users (vaguely but reasonably described), and so "free" solutions utilize loopholes in the leg…

> Why accuse the FSF of hypocrisy? If I ship some piece of hardware on a PC with its firmware burned into a ROM and do not provide the source (a binary blob), the FSF will happily say my hardware is RYF-certified. If I ship the exact same hardware with the exact same firmware as a binary blob but in Flash RAM or loaded at init by a driver they'll accuse me of not "respecting freedom". Same hardware. Same firmware. Sa…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30036588
Post reply on HN