| |||||||||||||
NitpickingNitpickingPosted Oct 15, 2010 9:47 UTC (Fri) by endecotp (guest, #36428)In reply to: Nitpicking by anselm Parent article: The FSF's hardware endorsement program
> if upgrading the software involves unsoldering and replacing
> read-only firmware chips
Well that's a great example of the double-standards. I have a soldering iron and a computer on my desk; if I have to spend an hour using the computer to change the code that is OK, but if I have to spend ten minutes using the soldering iron to achieve the same goal, that's not OK.
(Log in to post comments)
Nitpicking Posted Oct 15, 2010 12:49 UTC (Fri) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935) [Link]
That's because the FSF considers anything soldered as equivalent to hardware rather than software. It's definitely a double standard, but you can expect that given their name is Free _Software_ Foundation.
Nitpicking Posted Oct 15, 2010 18:24 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
I'm pretty sure that if someone were to load a full linux distro into ROM and put it on a system and then not provide source there would be many people up in arms about the violation.
but according to the FSF, if this is something that needs a soldering iron to change it's acceptable.
Nitpicking Posted Oct 15, 2010 19:10 UTC (Fri) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]
The FSF's hardware endorsement criteria have nothing to do with whether you can violate the GPL on some piece of software just because you've burned that GPLed software into a ROM. The hardware endorsement criteria just have some rough, pragmatic statement of when the FSF considers some piece of software too much like hardware to demand source for it: namely, if nobody can change that software on a shipped product anyway. That doesn't mean they don't want that software, like all other software, to provide freedom to its users; it just means that they have a pragmatic understanding of what they can actually ask for. These endorsement criteria already require that a system have a Free Software BIOS, loadable firmware, and so on.
Nitpicking Posted Oct 15, 2010 21:12 UTC (Fri) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]
> nobody can change that software
No, that's not what they say; the criteria is:
" ...except for certain microcode and firmware.
Not "nobody can change", but simply "not meant to be changed" (meant by whom?), and has to be a "low level processor".
(Note that the linked text is evolving...)
Nitpicking Posted Oct 15, 2010 21:23 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
you already note that "not meant to be changed" is very imprecise, but at the same time "auxiliary processors" is also very imprecise.
I could argue that on a smartphone, the cpu running linux is the "auxiliary processor" and that the main processor is the one running the radio (this would still be non-free, but would again make it so that the source for linux wouldn't be needed by this nebulous criteria)
they either need to say that they don't care about device firmware (and then define it suitable, for Tivo, linux is the device firmware), or they need to not make exceptions for firmware that may be harder to modify.
Nitpicking Posted Oct 20, 2010 2:09 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I think that both conditions are meant to apply: "The exception applies to auxiliary processors or low level processors, none of whose software is meant to be installed or changed by the user or by the seller." So it must be an auxiliary (or low level) processor, and also its software must be non-serviceable. Not a smartphone by any definition.
|
|||||||||||||