Hardly. You can call it Open Firmware(TM), not open firmware.
Which is in any case irrelevant. Open Firmware != open firmware.
Given that there's apparently no protection at all, I see no reason why I'd have to adhere to your wish to use 1275's way of writing O and F in upper case. So yes, I _can_ call it open firmware.
Open Firmware != open firmware.
let's shorten the other thread, since you just reiterate the same claim all the time without backing it up: I reject your prescriptivism just like I reject snagglegaggle's.
Initial bootstrap can be ROM, can be closed, but need not be. Stop compromising and accepting the status quo. The IBM POWER systems by Raptor have open firmware at every level. Is the CPU design open? Not entirely, but it is overall better, and I'm not trying to mislead people about it like the sales rep in this thread.
Your firewire example is disingenious, and no, I would disagree that it is open. Charlatans like System76 abuse the terms to sell their products taking advantage of the goodwill of those who do not know better.
I can implement IEEE1275-1994 as fully closed sourced code and call it open firmware.
> if there's still a lot of closed firmware in it.
Downthread you mention "With nonCPU blobs there is (usually) a memory boundary", which I'll take as the boundary you made for yourself in these matters.
With this boundary, the amount of "closed" firmware doesn't matter. The right 8 bytes at the right place and time are enough. Guess what:
> But why would I believe this? It seems you're selling snake oil.
The initial bootstrap is basically always implemented in a boot ROM (whether you see it or not) and it could decide to implement a backdoor unless some conditions are met.
According to your criterion all computing out there more modern than Z80 or 65816 era stuff is insufficient.