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

21–30 of 205 posts

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

#21

Post by marcodiego »

oshiar53-0 wrote: post #18
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…

See https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html for the rationale. Basically, FSF had to make a compromise here. If you use Flash ROM (or other writable medium), the firmware counts as a nonfree software . However, if you use actual ROM, the firmware might as well have been a circuit baked right in the product, so it counts as hardware ; nevertheless, it counts as non-free. FSF's ultimate goal would of course be to…

Bookmarking it.

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

#22

Post by wmf »

oshiar53-0 wrote: post #18
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…

See https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html for the rationale. Basically, FSF had to make a compromise here. If you use Flash ROM (or other writable medium), the firmware counts as a nonfree software . However, if you use actual ROM, the firmware might as well have been a circuit baked right in the product, so it counts as hardware ; nevertheless, it counts as non-free. FSF's ultimate goal would of course be to…

The FSF had to make a compromise, but many people think they drew the line in the wrong place. When no reasonable hardware can meet the "compromise" version of RYF it just causes users to bounce off.

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

#23

Post by tedunangst »

oshiar53-0 wrote: post #18
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…

See https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html for the rationale. Basically, FSF had to make a compromise here. If you use Flash ROM (or other writable medium), the firmware counts as a nonfree software . However, if you use actual ROM, the firmware might as well have been a circuit baked right in the product, so it counts as hardware ; nevertheless, it counts as non-free. FSF's ultimate goal would of course be to…

Whether it's loaded into RAM or ROM is the most useless distinction to make. It's functionally identical. Now whether a driver requires executing proprietary code on the host CPU, that is a useful distinction to make, because it allows independent OS implementations to create free drivers.

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

#25

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

tedunangst wrote: post #23
oshiar53-0 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html for the rationale. Basically, FSF had to make a compromise here. If you use Flash ROM (or other writable medium), the firmware counts as a nonfree software . However, if you use actual ROM, the firmware might as well have been a circuit baked right in the product, so it counts as hardware ; nevertheless, it counts as non-free. FSF's ultimate goal would of course be to…

Whether it's loaded into RAM or ROM is the most useless distinction to make. It's functionally identical. Now whether a driver requires executing proprietary code on the host CPU, that is a useful distinction to make, because it allows independent OS implementations to create free drivers.

It isn't identical. With a fixed ROM, every user is denied an opportunity to upgrade rather than just those without an anointed OS. It's about equal access.

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

#26

Post by not2b »

oshiar53-0 wrote: post #18
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…

See https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html for the rationale. Basically, FSF had to make a compromise here. If you use Flash ROM (or other writable medium), the firmware counts as a nonfree software . However, if you use actual ROM, the firmware might as well have been a circuit baked right in the product, so it counts as hardware ; nevertheless, it counts as non-free. FSF's ultimate goal would of course be to…

Yes, they have a rationale, but it's a poor one. Followed to its logical conclusion, I can make any program free. All I have to do it put it in ROM. Then I can pretend it is part of the hardware. Software in ROM is not hardware, it's just software that can't be improved or fixed.

The other point they ignore that if some part is programmable but currently requires proprietary firmware, it's possible (and this has happened) that people reverse-engineer it and produce free software that runs on it. BUt if you bought the FSF-blessed version of that device you're then stuck with the proprietary version of that program forever, and worse, you can't get any updates for that program. You can't get a security fix, and you can't replace it with the free program.

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

#27

Post by tedunangst »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #25
tedunangst wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether it's loaded into RAM or ROM is the most useless distinction to make. It's functionally identical. Now whether a driver requires executing proprietary code on the host CPU, that is a useful distinction to make, because it allows independent OS implementations to create free drivers.

It isn't identical. With a fixed ROM, every user is denied an opportunity to upgrade rather than just those without an anointed OS. It's about equal access.

Sounds like a good reason to certify hardware that puts firmware in RAM.

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

#28

Post by irfwashere »

If you'll forgive my naivete here I've been thinking a lot about the FSF philosophy and wanted to ask HN: how big of a project would it be to create a fully libre (whatever you want to call you it) laptop? Like how feasible is it to use "free" components put together into a package and what kind of budget would be required?

I think China has a few companies working on domestic processors. Let's say they are convinced by Stallman's charisma to make chips that are not cutting edge but decent, and libre.

Whatever your thoughts are on China but I would suggest to the FSF to slowly move in that direction. Where all the component schematics are open and viewable. At least to go for auditability since no one trusts the Chinese.

Like I said, forgive the naivete, but it feels like a noble yet lofty goal.

And then proceed to go into every industry with right to repair issues. Deere tractor competitors, home appliances, and so on. In the name of component longevity and repairability. All of this to repudiate forced obsolescence and to promote end user freedoms.

It's a stretch but I enjoy dreaming about it. Hoping a better world is possible.

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

#29

Post by marcan_42 »

marcodiego wrote: post #17
kryptiskt wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the ideology of the FSF is a perfectly fine one. It's the hardware vendors that insist on binary blobs that are the problem here. Their ideology has led them into preferring proprietary firmware that is inaccessible to the user like in the Purism example. I hate that, there is hope that a device that requires binary blobs from the main OS can be reverse engineered and free software developed for it. Making…

People are parroting "the purism example...". Just stop it! Librem-5 is NOT certified!

But they want to be certified, and the hilarious RAM initialization workaround was absolutely done as part of trying to get certified.

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

#30

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

tedunangst wrote: post #27
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't identical. With a fixed ROM, every user is denied an opportunity to upgrade rather than just those without an anointed OS. It's about equal access.

Sounds like a good reason to certify hardware that puts firmware in RAM.

Most peripheral ICs have an on board micro with internal RAM and flash. Their RAM isn't typically accessible.
Post reply on HN