News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Message to Our Customers by chimeracoder on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @04:46AM (#11116631)
> And nobody runs Android on a phone where the entire stack is open source and blob free.

> Anyone who does is a rounding error.

I'm actually curious if there is literally anyone who uses no proprietary software, including the radios and the SoC, on their Android device.

My bet is that there's not even a single device out there for which this is possible. (If there is, I'd love to see it.)

Re:A Message to Our Customers by spacelizard on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @05:03AM (#11116728)
Not quite, but you can come close. I have Cyanogen installed on all my Android devices and I try to use as little proprietary software as possible. However I am patiently waiting for the Neo900, which is a free (libre) hardware design based on the Nokia N900: https://neo900.org/

According to them, there are unfortunately no baseband modems on the market that can legally have their firmware distributed as free software. Their workaround is to keep the modem as isolated from the CPU/RAM as possible.

Re:A Message to Our Customers by chimeracoder on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @05:05AM (#11116733)
> According to them, there are unfortunately no baseband modems on the market that can legally have their firmware distributed as free software.

What is the legal restriction here? (It sounds like you're referring to some restriction beyond simple copyright protection on some of their components - are there FCC regulations regarding the firmware?)

EDIT: Ah, of course, the FCC needs to certify devices before they can actually be used.

Re:A Message to Our Customers by spacelizard on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @05:22AM (#11116804)
From their FAQ: https://neo900.org/faq#peripherals

>We unfortunately cannot provide free baseband modem firmware, as there is no option available on the market which would be able to fulfil this requirement. Even if it existed, it would bring very little value to the users, as operating a radio device with modified firmware on public networks without recertification is prohibited in most jurisdictions of the world and privacy concerns in cellular networks are mostly related to what happens on the network side, not inside the device.

I don't have any more information than this. If someone can quote specific FCC regulations to back this up, I would find that very interesting :)

Re:A Message to Our Customers by simon_vetter on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @05:53AM (#11116942)
> Even if it existed, it would bring very little value to the users, as operating a radio device with modified firmware on public networks without recertification is prohibited in most jurisdictions of the world and privacy concerns in cellular networks are mostly related to what happens on the network side, not inside the device.

Not entirely true, publishing the code isn't the same as allowing its modification. Code signing can be used to limit which versions are allowed to run.

Reproducible builds of the source would allow one to ensure that the binary, certified version of the code their baseband processor is running is legit (i.e. not backdoored). It would also help audit the code and spot security holes.

Re:A Message to Our Customers by chimeracoder on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @06:05AM (#11116984)
> Not entirely true, publishing the code isn't the same as allowing its modification. Code signing can be used to limit which versions are allowed to run.

If I can't run my home-compiled versions of your code - whether because of code signing restrictions or because of federal law prohibiting firmware that hasn't been certified - it's not free[0]. So without without reproducible builds, providing the source code for the firmware provides very little benefit (since I have no way to prove that the code corresponds to what's actually running on the device, nor any legal way to install and run it on the device myself.)

Reproducible builds could in theory work, but actually getting builds to be bit-for-bit reproducible is not an easy feat. I'd be very surprised if firmware were capable of this.

[0] This is a great example of why a free software license doesn't necessarily mean that the software is free. It means that the author has waived his/her ability to restrict your freedom to use/modify/distribute the software, but that doesn't mean that third parties (ie, the government, or a patent troll) have done the same.

Re:A Message to Our Customers by Karunamon on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @11:47AM (#11119127)
Not free, but open. I'd argue the latter is significantly more important than the former if you're trying to protect against the code working against you. At least if the code is open, you can inspect it and verify its operation.
Re:A Message to Our Customers by em3rgent0rdr on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @06:38AM (#11117135)
Although replicant currently can't do free software on the modem and bootloader, everything else is: http://www.replicant.us/supported-devices.php
Re:A Message to Our Customers by evanosaurus on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @04:59AM (#11116710)
That's the current state of affairs. I know of no baseband manufacturer who has ever offered (nor seemed open to the idea of releasing) source for their chips.

Basebands aside, the rest of the device is somewhat feasible to see being open.

Re:A Message to Our Customers by swiley on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @06:39AM (#11117138)
> including the radios We no for a fact that they don't because that's illigal in the US.
Re:A Message to Our Customers by jumpwah on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @04:58AM (#11116697)
It's not possible because pretty much all baseband processors (radios) run nonfree software.
Re:A Message to Our Customers by maccard on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @05:02AM (#11116727)
What's the closest one can reasonably get?