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

81–90 of 205 posts

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

#81

Post by boomboomsubban »

ineedasername wrote: post #65

Is RYF certification a significant market force among users who want more open devices? I don't really follow it closely enough to know, but I checked in on the Librem 5 project periodically and this is the first I heard about RYF certification for the project, or the implication that it would be a significant driver of customer behavior. Is my outsiders impression of this niche incorrect?

I think if a reasonable product actually got RYF certification it would attract a lot of people who have so far just accepted that an open device isn't happening and compromises need to be made.

Basically I don't check RYF certification before buying a product, but if I heard of one getting it I'd be interested in it.

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

#82

Post by jeppesen-io »

marcodiego wrote: post #70
jeppesen-io wrote: post #66

FSF's hardline attitude has always rubbed me the wrong way. I respect and support their goals but at the end of the day software should respect the needs and desires of their users I saw this on the nonguix repo for all non free software for guix > Please do NOT promote this repository on any official Guix communication channels, such as their mailing lists or IRC channel, even in response to support requests! This i…

I understand your position, but it would be better if the compromise was made by "the other side".

Oh, sure, that would be preferred but I can't see that happening anytime soon. I guess it all depends on whether you feel like the FSFs polices will bring improvement for open blobs etc

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

#83

Post by na85 »

someoneelse9 wrote: post #11

A 2009 thinkpad is rather capable of being a daily driver for most people. Saying otherwise, you're only contributing to the growing problem of ewaste. Even the T60 offers a decent performance if your usecase is browsing the web, mail and other simple tasks. The FSF might be wrong in some aspects but there's no real alternative to Libreboot. The Framework laptop is not free software friendly. Even if it was coreboote…

>Even the T60 offers a decent performance if your usecase is browsing the web,

I actually own a T60 and this is not true, for any reasonable definition of "decent".

The web is a horrid wasteland of poor performance JavaScript.

Forget running any Electron apps (a necessity it seems in this day of Zoom and MS Teams).

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

#84

Post by jeppesen-io »

r283492 wrote: post #77
jeppesen-io wrote: post #66

FSF's hardline attitude has always rubbed me the wrong way. I respect and support their goals but at the end of the day software should respect the needs and desires of their users I saw this on the nonguix repo for all non free software for guix > Please do NOT promote this repository on any official Guix communication channels, such as their mailing lists or IRC channel, even in response to support requests! This i…

> To do my job and boot my laptop nonguix is required but not even allowed to talk about it with the OS it intends to support, is not something I can agree with The OS isn't a person. The OS has online discussion forums and the people who develop the OS CAN talk about it in the appropriate forum. Identifying and separating nonfree issues is a useful tool in their goals. The FSF last year started a new campaign that i…

> Identifying and separating nonfree issues is a useful tool in their goals.

Issues are not always easily separated but I understand it's a tool for their goals. It's just not for me

> The FSF last year started a new campaign that is specifically meant to not be hardline and to respect the needs and desires of users: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/support-the-freedom-ladd....

I was not aware of this - I will read up on it. Thank you

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

#85

Post by floatingatoll »

marcodiego wrote: post #75
r283492 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Pinebook pro has one or more other blobs and they are for more significant functionality.

Hmmm... I like RK3399-based devices because they need very few blobs. Would you mind to list which blobs the pinebook pro needs?

https://forum.pine64.org/showthread.php?pid=97828

The above link contains the answers applicable to your question.

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

#86

Post by r283492 »

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…

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

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

#87

Post by oshiar53-0 »

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…

>"They should die for the cause."

In his stance, more like "proprietary driver vendors are holding hostage of patients."

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

#88

Post by random314 »

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…

Which talk was this and what kind of medical equipment?

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

#89

Post by d0mine »

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…

Imagine you are fighting for peasants rights; feudal doesn’t like it and orders to kill one peasant per day until you surrender. Question are you the bad guy for not surrendering?

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

#90

Post by erosenbe0 »

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…

RISC-V is foremost about freedom from licensing rather than open-source so I'd hold my breath
Post reply on HN