Thanks to you and @kingosticks above for digging up these official accounts.

Cursory examination of rpi firmware suggests that this DRM logic is implemented in start.elf, one of the proprietary blobs required to boot an rpi. This is, in itself, significant, since opening this blob would obviously make this restriction easy to circumvent. In other words, rpi have taken design decisions which essentially motivate them not to open up these boot blobs, but rather use them as a chokepoint of control over the platform, see also [1].

From this, we can infer that rpi.org will probably never get rid of these boot blobs (as opposed to simply not having found the time/resources to do something about them).

[1] https://github.com/nucular/raspi-keygen

You are right, they probably won't open the blobs if it means circumventing their own DRM, which I think has been shown to be used reasonably. The mpeg license has almost the same argument as the v2 camera, I think we have covered that.

But that aside, "as a chokepoint of control over the platform"? What platform are you specifically talking about?

The same could be said about the VideoCore 4 blob which was used to boot the SoC. And yet they just did get rid of it.

I don't think they got rid of the blob, so much as moved it from the SD card to an onboard SPI flash more like you'd find on a typical PC. It's still there and even more required to boot the board than on previous Pis, but people distributing images no longer have to worry about the licensing and other headaches that were caused by having to include it.

There's a mainline driver that according to their own statements is now used for the gpu. Whether there's a firmware blob underneath it is a whole other story and as long as it's not something that has to be distributed with the OS I don't see how it should be treated any different than e.g. the AMD or intel gpus.

IIUC, you're saying that, for the Raspberry Pi designers, being open hardware is not only not a requirement, but there's actually requirements to be aggressively closed hardware in some regards?

I don't think one can paint attempting to stop counterfeit cameras (which were aggressively counterfeited) as being aggressively closed hardware.

Look Rpi have a clear goal, to get kids coding. Everything, and I mean _everything_ they do is to further that goal. One part of that is to have a platform that is, safe, easy, expandable and _cheap_. A side effect of that is that its mostly open.

Now, is it as open as say fabbing your own RISC-V SoC? no. But then that would cost a boat load of cash, and it would then be cloned and resold by third parties. Thus, no money for education. (worse still, dangerous counterfeits might be bought by schools, cause injury leading to legal action.)

So, being pragmatic, and noting that the ecosystem is far more valuable to me, and almost everyone else, than the hardware, I will accept this behaviour.

It's fine if that's their requirements, but that wasn't clear originally.

It seems that people who care about technology open standards, open source, and open hardware need a clear understanding of Raspberry Pi requirements, and that they're actually getting hardware that is more closed than a typical PC.

(Related: Starting over a decade ago, some IBM ThinkPad models infamously whitelisted mini-PCIe cards, so that only a small set of particular cards could be used, which was very unusual for PC hardware based on open standards. One of the biggest practical reasons to put Coreboot on those ThinkPads is to get rid of the awful whitelisting, so that people could use whatever cards they wanted, including using WiFi cards supporting later standards and working without having to download closed firmware blobs.)

It was always the requirement. It was designed as a machine to replace the BBC micro.

most PCs have BIOS, which is closed source, and difficult to get access to. yes there are opensource alternatives, but they are not entirely practical.

Most modern PCs have a TPM, EFI and a whole host of other bits that make opensource drivers exceedingly difficult. Then there is the graphics card, where if you want to actually have decent speed it means closed source drivers (I'm talking nVidia/ATI, intel doesn't really count as they are adding GPUs as a value add, not a core business.)

Harddrives have closed source and obfuscated software that actually does the writing/reading.

Then there is the out-of-band management that is shoehorned into a lot of Intel and AMD's kit.

so, to say that it is more closed than a PC, is either ignorance or hyperbole.

Also, you have to remember that yes, the PC was based around open standards, but not open source. You still had to pay to get certified, or even get access to the spec.

Considering that you can attach any hardware either in the form of a HAT, or via the CSI, I think the argument is flawed. Again, there is nothing stopping people using a clone, if they so wish. But all the rpi clones appear to be mediocre at best.

Although PCs have traditionally had closed-source firmware, this firmware has not typically been used to implement malicious functionality (aside from cases such as the Thinkpad example above), making it historically less of a concern (though this is changing). Vendor lockin doesn't magically become acceptable because kids (nor is it ethical to teach kids that DRM is okay/normal).

Also, define rpi clone - rpi did not invent the SBC genre. Many more open products precede it.

FYI, AMD graphics drivers are fully open now.

> not typically been used to implement malicious functionality

so raspberry pi, in an effort to be more open than say Dell/HP, where you had/have to pay to download drivers, bios and other updates, is _more_ malicious than say apple/google who are competing to create a closed garden with a remote lockout, where nothing is owned, only rented?

ya.

I really don't understand this viewpoint.

Look, I've used embedded 386s. I've seen the evolution of ARM SBC first hand. I've used gumstix, sheevas and custom rolled jobbies. You know what united them all? they were bloody expensive and difficult to use. Pis are a joy to use. Plus if you accidentally blow the board, you're not down £500

Adding a DRM so that people can't make knock off cameras, in exchange for a £10 full linux SBC that is _easy_ is a worthy exchange. Even if they weren't a charity. The fact that they are single-handedly dragging the pathetic excuse for IT education in the UK ("here is how to use Microsoft office") into something approaching usefulness is a massive massive bonus.

The ecosystem that raspberry pi supports, the OS, magazines, training, teaching, class room outreach and research can only be done with cold hard cash. That cash comes from Pi sales.

Don't get me started on DRM. Look I know you think that everything should be free, but that means I can't earn a living.

Teaching kids that copy/pasting someone's work, making a halfarsed cheap copy and selling it for loads of profit, with no support is a good moral choice, you might want to re-asses your world view.

Yes open source is good. Yes you should give back and contribute. But, to move forward, money has to be invested, and it has to come from something.

Yes, removing ownership from the people is exceptionally bad. The trend towards the "sharing" economy undermines workers rights to the point that we are entering digital feudalism. But that is another topic.

I don't own a smartphone/any Apple/Google products, or Dell/HP machines for that matter (not surprising to me that they're bad). My frame of reference is typical PCs, which aren't in the habit of applying vendor lockin with regards to what peripherals you can use - and other SBCs.

I don't understand the premise that not applying vendor lockin to a camera module would make SBCs unreasonably expensive. Competing SBCs are more open, many predate the rpi and despite the fact that they probably sell fewer units than the rpi (due to less brand exposure, not cloning), and thus possess lower economies of scale, I've never seen one which costs "£500".

>Don't get me started on DRM. Look I know you think that everything should be free, but that means I can't earn a living.

I think this is clearly untrue from the success of other, more open SBCs.

>Teaching kids that copy/pasting someone's work, making a halfarsed cheap copy and selling it for loads of profit, with no support is a good moral choice, you might want to re-asses your world view.

But I never claimed that kids should be taught that. What I do claim is that kids should not be taught that it's ethical or normal/acceptable to try and use malicious functionality to institute vendor lockin, creating an artificial monopoly in compatible peripherals, because it isn't.

Moreover, it appears this DRM has had a chilling effect on third-party cameras with novel functionality (i.e., not competing for the same applications as the official camera), according to a comment posted above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20261787 So there's real evidence of harm done by this.

>Yes, removing ownership from the people is exceptionally bad. The trend towards the "sharing" economy undermines workers rights to the point that we are entering digital feudalism. But that is another topic.

It isn't another topic. There is a systemic trend of hardware vendors using firmware to advance and prioritise their own interests over those of the device owner, essentially using technological measures to undermine the first sale doctrine. Of course, this isn't illegal, though it ought to be.

   > But I never claimed that kids should be taught that. What I do 
   > claim is that kids should not be taught that it's ethical or
   > normal/acceptable to try and use malicious functionality to 
   > institute vendor lockin, creating an artificial monopoly in
   > compatible peripherals, because it isn't.

I'm sorry, I didn't buy a Raspberry Pi for my little brother in order to teach him about vendor lock-in. I bought him a Pi so that he'd learn Python and explore the boundary between the electronic, software world and the real physical one that so often seems shrouded in mystery. I did not buy the Pi because I like supporting non-open companies- I bought it because A) it has a great value proposition, especially once you factor in the community support, and B) I like the Raspberry Pi people. They have hearts. They care. I understand them DRM'ing a $10 part when it's not crucial to standard operation (nor a lot of projects) and it's not like you can't just get an old PC and stick a webcam on it.

The way I see it, a Raspberry Pi is more than the sum of its parts- while commercial companies care about the chips and the complexity a solution like a Pi can remove, I personally bought a Pi for my brother to learn on.

> I've never seen one which costs "£500".

2006, gumstix with bluetooth was $180, but that was a very small system to dev for. embedded 386 in volumes of 1 were ~£380, CF flash(certified) £80-200. Software was extra, as was the debugging interface, which may or may not be a fancy serial port. Ethernet, RF, all extra. Wifi? naaa.

The arm board, I don't know how much they cost because they were custom made. So hundreds of thousands I suspect.

Then we have the tools that supported it, not exactly kid friendly.