Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Free Software Foundation courts hardware vendors (Linux-Watch)Free Software Foundation courts hardware vendors (Linux-Watch)Posted Mar 3, 2007 17:36 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Free Software Foundation courts hardware vendors (Linux-Watch) by ajross Parent article: Free Software Foundation courts hardware vendors (Linux-Watch)
The core requirement for freedom isn't about how black the boxes are. It's about defining a well-understood *interface* to those boxes, so people who have those boxes can customize their usage. This means totally-locked-down Vista box is 100% free by your definition. You have well-understood interface to play with it. Who cares about the difference between, say, a piece of hardware that does a particular job, and one that does exactly the same thing, but uses some internal software to do it? Any sane person should care. The reason is simple: if the thing is complex enough to warrant Flash Memory (ROM is cheaper) it's complex enough to have bugs and this means it's complex enough to warrant third-party fixes - and for that you need free software. There are valid and legitimate complaints about device firmware. It often comes with a license that needlessly restricts redistribution. It is often undocumented or incompletely documented. It often exports only a fraction of the capability of the hardware. But to complain about the "black boxness" just seems to be missing the point. Do the s/firmware/software/g. Read your text again. Explain why in case of software you are saying that it'd better be free and in case of firmware you are happy with just weak complains ? Because "it's done this way" ? Strange argument: 15 years ago almost all software was "done this way" and free OS was a dream. Firmware today is bigger then whole OS were 15 years ago! Actually firmware today often include the whole OS! Why should it not be free ? I'm not free software purist. I use non-free software and non-free firmware from time to time (non-free firmware more often as it's harder to avoid). But I honestly can not see any difference between non-free software and non-free firmware so FSF's complaint makes perfect sense. What does it matter for me if DVD-ROM's firmware checks the DVD region byte or Windows's driver checks DVD region byte ? In both cases I can not see legitemately bought DVDs...
(Log in to post comments)
Free Software Foundation courts hardware vendors (Linux-Watch) Posted Mar 3, 2007 18:24 UTC (Sat) by ajross (subscriber, #4563) [Link] You're rather stretching the point I made. I never said free firmware was bad. Just that the criterion the FSF was using to define "free" here was fuzzy and counterproductive. There are real issues of freedom they can talk about that *do* have immediate effects on the freedoms of users (read down to the bottom to see where I list some). But instead they choose to argue against "black boxness", which is a *practical* criticism. And it has the effect of punishing (!) hardware vendors with the forethought to do their design in a configurable way.
Your Vista argument was a straw man misdirection, and you should know better. Windows is non-free for lots of reasons, but the fact that it is a "black box" is not one of them. Where on earth did you get "100% free" from my original post?
Free Software Foundation courts hardware vendors (Linux-Watch) Posted Mar 3, 2007 21:59 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] You're rather stretching the point I made. I never said free firmware was bad. Just that the criterion the FSF was using to define "free" here was fuzzy and counterproductive. Huh ? They used their standard definition as far as I can see. Don't know what's "fuzzy" about it. Counterproductive - for whom ? The goal of FSF is to free computer owners. Anything else is not so important. I fail to see how their stance is counterproductive to this goal. There are real issues of freedom they can talk about that *do* have immediate effects on the freedoms of users (read down to the bottom to see where I list some). Just like 20 years ago there were "immediate effects on the freedoms of users" (related to infamous printer driver). Surprisingly enough FSF was created to produce free OS, not to produce more versatile printer driver infrastructure. But instead they choose to argue against "black boxness", which is a *practical* criticism. And it has the effect of punishing (!) hardware vendors with the forethought to do their design in a configurable way. It does not "punish" anyone. The only way to open "full capability of the hardware" is to open firmware. ARM and MIPS instruction sets are Turing-complete - you can not fit all possibilities in one firmware. No matter how powerful it is there are always something not included there. The mere existence of changeable firmware is admission of that fact: otherwise single one version of firmware embedded in ROM will be enough. After that the same logic apply: manufacturer reserves right to add future enhancements to itself. Why the actual owner of the device is restricted ? Your Vista argument was a straw man misdirection, and you should know better. Windows is non-free for lots of reasons, but the fact that it is a "black box" is not one of them. Where on earth did you get "100% free" from my original post? Here we go again: "The core requirement for freedom isn't about how black the boxes are. It's about defining a well-understood *interface* to those boxes, so people who have those boxes can customize their usage." If you buy the PC with Vista as part of "firmware", where it's impossible to install anything else (crypto hashes and all that), but where you can write "free software" in sand boxed environment in VBA - why it's non-free ? If the freedom is about defining a well-understood interface ? VBA is certainly well-understood interface: there are books on it, conferences, it's used by millions of people around the world. The FSF's stance is simple: any software component is just that - software component. It deserves freedom. Your stance is different: there are firmware and there are software. But the question remains: where is the border ? Firmware certainly can include full-fledged OS (takes a look on the WRT54GL on shelf) so what's the difference ? Where is the border after which we should say: "no, it's not a firmware anymore, it's a software" ?
Free Software Foundation courts hardware vendors (Linux-Watch) Posted Mar 4, 2007 2:09 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] ""...if the thing is complex enough to warrant Flash Memory (ROM is cheaper) it's complex enough to have bugs and this means it's complex enough to warrant third-party fixes - and for that you need free software. ""
Well.. it seems to me that the complex thing can be break down in parts... because Linux Foundation can participate in the firmware as much as in the drivers themselfs.
.- at start the firmware functionality and driver functionality can have well define boundaries.
.- when there arises the need to have little modifications to hardware maintaining essencially the same chipset structure, something like AGEIA http://www.linuxbios.org/data/LinuxBIOS%20AMD%202006%20Fi...
.- relevante developers can have full knowledge of every detail involved under that NDA.
.- Otherwise use a more developed AGEIA as an interface between firmware and drivers.
... because if too much political force is applayed those vendors will run for cover and wont open anything.
Free Software Foundation courts hardware vendors (Linux-Watch) Posted Mar 4, 2007 2:11 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] TYPO: AGEIA should read AGESA
Free Software Foundation courts hardware vendors (Linux-Watch) Posted Mar 4, 2007 10:07 UTC (Sun) by rqosa (guest, #24136) [Link] > The reason is simple: if the thing is complex enough to warrant Flash Memory (ROM is cheaper) it's complex enough to have bugs and this means it's complex enough to warrant third-party fixes - and for that you need free software. Devices with changeable firmware don't necessarily have flash memory. For example: The firmware for ivtv cards isn't actually stored in ROM on the cards, it needs to be loaded every time the driver loads. (emphasis added)
Free Software Foundation courts hardware vendors (Linux-Watch) Posted Mar 4, 2007 17:42 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] hmm... agreed. Where the firmware is stored (ROM or not) is irrelevant in the sense of a community being able to participate in their development.
The problem would be not "reverse engineering", but enough documentation for some people to be able to start development... under a NDA, why not ?
"" The firmware for ivtv cards isn't actually stored in ROM on the cards, it needs to be loaded every time the driver loads. (emphasis added) ""
That is why something like AGESA, imho, could prove to be very importante adressing that firmware dynamic... and vendors fear.
|
|||||||||||