Re:The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free s...
by csande17 on Sunday January 23, 2022 @01:34AM
(#30044103)
It sure sucks that device makers just have to wait and hope someone writes free firmware. If only they had some way to cause the firmware to be written, perhaps involving things like "money" or "employees" or "contracts with vendors".
The alternatives to this policy are allowing all blobs, in which case the RYF certification isn't actually verifying anything, or not allowing any blobs, in which case RYF cannot certify any devices made after 2009 (something the author also takes issue with). Making it expensive and risky for device makers to rely on blobs is the only middle ground that makes sense.
Re:The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free s...
by kaba0 on Sunday January 23, 2022 @04:13AM
(#30044756)
You seem to miss that these devices are often full of patented parts, so in most cases even if the manufacturer wanted to, they can’t provide sources. Also, modems are often legally mandated to have certain firmware (so that restricted frequencies are adhered to)
Re:The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free s...
by seba_dos1 on Sunday January 23, 2022 @05:25AM
(#30045077)
> even if the manufacturer wanted to, they can’t provide sources
In many cases they don't even have them or may not be aware that there's an upgradable firmware in some of the components they're using at all.
The device maker could ship with programmable proprietary firmware and have the possibility of being RYF-certified in the future if someone writes free firmware. Or they could ship with proprietary firmware in ROM and be guaranteed RYF certification immediately. The rules encourage them to pick the second option, and it's no surprise that companies such as Purism have done so.
Yet that option is never better for user freedom, since making software un-upgradeable does not make it any more free. And occasionally it is worse, in the event free firmware becomes available later on.