@lxo
Also, no, I'm not just associated with Debian, I've been a Debian Developer for just over 25 years now, and have been a DPL candidate thrice. Trust me when I say that we don't welcome the non free blobs. Our strategy however is one of pragmatism: if people need to buy expensive hardware to run free software, that's a barrier to adoption. We keep the barrier low in hopes that it will convince some people.
@mjg59
Also, no, I'm not just associated with Debian, I've been a Debian Developer for just over 25 years now, and have been a DPL candidate thrice. Trust me when I say that we don't welcome the non free blobs. Our strategy however is one of pragmatism: if people need to buy expensive hardware to run free software, that's a barrier to adoption. We keep the barrier low in hopes that it will convince some people.
@mjg59
@lxo
I don't think it's a trend. Even so, you said, and I quote, "a piece of software that you don't stand a chance of modifying yourself, because it's digitally signed by the vendor so that you can't".
Not all non free firmware is like that. Yet the ryf campaign requires that no firmware be updatable as though it were.
So, when a replacement free firmware is built, a device that has the RYF badge will be less free than one that doesn't.
@mjg59
I don't think it's a trend. Even so, you said, and I quote, "a piece of software that you don't stand a chance of modifying yourself, because it's digitally signed by the vendor so that you can't".
Not all non free firmware is like that. Yet the ryf campaign requires that no firmware be updatable as though it were.
So, when a replacement free firmware is built, a device that has the RYF badge will be less free than one that doesn't.
@mjg59
@hyc
Right. I remember using it with my business partner in 2003, I think? Ages after it made sense, of course. But we always had an account on the same system, so I just misremembered 🙂
@spaceraser
Right. I remember using it with my business partner in 2003, I think? Ages after it made sense, of course. But we always had an account on the same system, so I just misremembered 🙂
@spaceraser
@spaceraser
(For that you'd need a 1968-era SDS940 computer, but hey you'd get analog video conferencing. Old enough?)
(For that you'd need a 1968-era SDS940 computer, but hey you'd get analog video conferencing. Old enough?)
@spaceraser
Also there's the collaborative work they did in the mother of all demos, but hey
Also there's the collaborative work they did in the mother of all demos, but hey
@spaceraser
I said, specifically, IRCv3. Older versions of IRC are pretty old.
The only thing that springs to mind which is more old than the first version of IRC are things like 'talk', which doesn't work with more than two users and which, I believe, requires that both users have an account on the same host.
I said, specifically, IRCv3. Older versions of IRC are pretty old.
The only thing that springs to mind which is more old than the first version of IRC are things like 'talk', which doesn't work with more than two users and which, I believe, requires that both users have an account on the same host.
Doing this incentivises the device manufacturers, who are in a better position than anyone to write free replacement firmware, to actually do so.
Instead, the fsf caved to the people who push non free embedded software and told them it's allowed, as long as the fsf can pretend the embedded software is not there.
I find this sad, and a betrayal of everything the free software movement stands for.
@lxo
@mjg59
Instead, the fsf caved to the people who push non free embedded software and told them it's allowed, as long as the fsf can pretend the embedded software is not there.
I find this sad, and a betrayal of everything the free software movement stands for.
@lxo
@mjg59
I would have been fine with an ryf campaign that said, say, at least X amount of the embedded software in the device must be free software, and no device can be used that requires non free software if alternative for the same function that doesn't require it exists, and no device, whether with free software or not may require cryptographic signatures for changes unless the owner can control the keys.
@lxo
@mjg59
@lxo
@mjg59
That's software, but it can't really be free software (because you can't change it even if your wanted to)
Anything that can theoretically be updated or loaded from outside the die though is software. It doesn't matter whether it is "indistinguishable" from hardware, the fact is that it *is* software. And as it is software, the only ethical thing for it is to be free.
@mjg59 @lxo
Anything that can theoretically be updated or loaded from outside the die though is software. It doesn't matter whether it is "indistinguishable" from hardware, the fact is that it *is* software. And as it is software, the only ethical thing for it is to be free.
@mjg59 @lxo
@lxo
Let me put it this way.
There are only very few cases in which firmware really needs to be embedded in the hardware and can't be put elsewhere.
The initial few opcodes of a CPU are a good example: those can't be outside the CPU because it still needs to initialise its components and so there is absolutely no possible way it can be outside the CPU die, and it's small enough that it doesnt matter if it's not updatable. @mjg59
Let me put it this way.
There are only very few cases in which firmware really needs to be embedded in the hardware and can't be put elsewhere.
The initial few opcodes of a CPU are a good example: those can't be outside the CPU because it still needs to initialise its components and so there is absolutely no possible way it can be outside the CPU die, and it's small enough that it doesnt matter if it's not updatable. @mjg59
@lxo
That's an opinion, not a fact, and one I very much disagree with.
Software is software. It doesn't matter whether the software is burned in ROM, it's still software.
To claim otherwise means you're fine with running non free software.
I'm not. I accept that it's not possible in today's world, but it's still not a good thing.
@mjg59
That's an opinion, not a fact, and one I very much disagree with.
Software is software. It doesn't matter whether the software is burned in ROM, it's still software.
To claim otherwise means you're fine with running non free software.
I'm not. I accept that it's not possible in today's world, but it's still not a good thing.
@mjg59
@lxo
And although I don't think it works for me, I can understand the argument for Linux-Libre. If there is no free firmware, and you prefer to keep your hardware unmodified, sure.
What I'm saying though is that forbidding any form of update, ever, of the firmware, and doing so in hardware, is wrong, because it makes it equally impossible to replace the non free firmware with a free one.
@mjg59
And although I don't think it works for me, I can understand the argument for Linux-Libre. If there is no free firmware, and you prefer to keep your hardware unmodified, sure.
What I'm saying though is that forbidding any form of update, ever, of the firmware, and doing so in hardware, is wrong, because it makes it equally impossible to replace the non free firmware with a free one.
@mjg59
@lxo
It would be one thing if you advocated against firmware that can't be changed without a signature by the hardware manufacturer, but that's not the case here. You're generalizing that all hardware requires signed firmware blobs.
I agree that verifying firmware signatures in hardware is evil and should be outlawed. But hardware that does no verification, or that verifies only a checksum, in hardware? That's perfectly fine.
@mjg59
It would be one thing if you advocated against firmware that can't be changed without a signature by the hardware manufacturer, but that's not the case here. You're generalizing that all hardware requires signed firmware blobs.
I agree that verifying firmware signatures in hardware is evil and should be outlawed. But hardware that does no verification, or that verifies only a checksum, in hardware? That's perfectly fine.
@mjg59
@lxo
When there was no free GNU system yet, most people believed that Emacs was a nice editor but there is no chance they'll ever succeed in writing a free os.
When there was a free compiler and a free libc, must people were like, this is a nice user space but nobody will ever make it a fully free os.
At every stage, the GNU project proved them wrong.
Why would the situation be different for non free firmware replacements?
@mjg59
When there was no free GNU system yet, most people believed that Emacs was a nice editor but there is no chance they'll ever succeed in writing a free os.
When there was a free compiler and a free libc, must people were like, this is a nice user space but nobody will ever make it a fully free os.
At every stage, the GNU project proved them wrong.
Why would the situation be different for non free firmware replacements?
@mjg59
@lxo
Today, there is no way to run a computer without non free firmware. The good and proper way to handle that would have been to accept that (as with the non free operating systems in the early 80s) and to fund/promote/encourage projects to produce free replacements.
Instead, the fsf chose to put their heads in the sand and pretend non free firmware doesn't exist when it's burned to ROM.
@mjg59
Today, there is no way to run a computer without non free firmware. The good and proper way to handle that would have been to accept that (as with the non free operating systems in the early 80s) and to fund/promote/encourage projects to produce free replacements.
Instead, the fsf chose to put their heads in the sand and pretend non free firmware doesn't exist when it's burned to ROM.
@mjg59