So, the thing is that, in proprietary software development, a lot of stuff is licensed and copied around, because the engineers need to get their jobs done on time. Legal makes sure that everyone actually is working with properly-licensed code (usually), but the definition of "properly-licensed" is going to be in the very narrow definition of "what do we need to license in order to ship the product".

Most of us here think of copyright in the way Disney or Nintendo thinks of copyright: we own the thing, and you don't get to touch the thing. However, to actually get 100% ownership over a copyrighted work, you actually have to make 100% of the work. If you're just buying what you need to make the thing work, then your ownership over the resulting software is going to be thin. After all, the people who sold you the software are going to want to be able to sell it to other people, and in order for that to work, those other people need to not have the software. Which means that all those licenses are going to have provisions on further redistribution so that they still have their copyright monopoly.

If you want to release source, then you have to go back to everyone you bought software from and renegotiate licenses on a far more expensive basis. Because you're asking them to take all the money they will ever make on that software all in one go. For similar reasons, things like licensed music tracks in games are far cheaper if the license is for a limited time, because then the record label can ask for more money later on. The irony of proprietary software development is that it can actually be just as collaborative as Free; but only if every participant regularly pays back into the system.

In contrast, the Free Software world tends to have some of the strictest copyright hygiene in any software industry. You have to, because the whole point is to more or less waive copyright interest in the code - and to do that, you need to have Disney-level ownership over everything. We can thus look at copyright as a sort of deliberate cultural poisoning that puts software developers and artists into the position of having to demand troll tolls everywhere.

I hear hardware vendors are scared shitless of running awful of other hardware vendor's patents. If they released their firmware, this would give other folks ammunitions to attack them in court.

Personally, I don't care much about firmware being proprietary, if it cannot be used to meaningfully change the functionality of the chip. But I do care about the chip ultimately following a public specification. I want an ISA just like x86, ARM, or RISC-V. Tell me the size and format of the ring buffer I must write to or read from, and I'll program the rest.

But even that is still too much to ask for apparently. Graphics cards are getting closer with lower level drivers like DX12 and Vulkan, but we're not quite there yet.

Unfortunately, from my understanding, hardware innovation seems to be on a trajectory whereby it is exactly going toward the case that most functionality is "soft" and thereby fundamental changes can be wrought through microcode. Just look at Nvidia's use of FALCON's. Hardware manufacturers seemingly WANT to be able to use the same piece of hardware for different jobs, and having blobs tooled to reconfigure it is the way to go.

My biggest problem is that figuring this state of affairs out is like pulling teeth.

That’s the thing about microcoded machines: they’re fundamentally flexible. Even so, to be honest I don’t care too much about that. What I really want is a reliable, stable enough interface to the hardware.

Besides, there are other ways to get that flexibility. CPUs for instance have a very flexible ISA: even if they’re set in stone, we can use them for pretty much anything, the only real limitation being performance.

Now when I think about it, even if firmware can significantly change the functionality of a chip, I don’t care too much of it being proprietary. Not more than I care about fixed hardware being proprietary. It’s okay for a piece of hardware to have 3 or 10 different configurations, as long as (i) I can trust that each configuration works as advertised, and (ii) the ISA I got from each configuration is publicly documented.

There’s a practical reason for this wish: hardware is typically orders of magnitude more reliable than software. That’s mostly because buggy software is easily updated, while flawed hardware is often impossible to sell. CPU bugs do happen, but they’re sufficiently few and far between that when my programs behave unexpectedly, I can safely assume it’s the software’s fault.

I don’t want drivers any more, I want the hardware’s manual. https://caseymuratori.com/blog_0031