| |||||||||||||
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"Posted Nov 8, 2010 20:29 UTC (Mon) by cmccabe (guest, #60281)In reply to: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" by lxoliva Parent article: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"
If you choose not to use non-free firmware, even when it means that many hardware devices are unusable for you, that's fine. I can understand why you would take this position. From what I understand, Richard Stallman practices what he preaches, and has a computer with no BIOS, no hardware that loads firmware, and no microcode running on the CPU.
What isn't fine is calling Linux "open core" just because it supports certain pieces of hardware that operate this way. "Open core" is a specific business model based on keeping part of the code proprietary and forcing users to pay you for its use. Simply interoperating with existing closed-source devices or code doesn't make something
By using the term this way, the FSF is diluting its meaning. People who really do have open core business models will now point to their press release and say "look! The Linux kernel is open core too! So our business model is fine." As usual for the FSF: ready, fire, aim.
What also isn't fine is blasting people working on open source software because their computers have BIOSes, contain hardware devices that need microcode, and have modern CPUs.
(Log in to post comments)
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 8, 2010 21:30 UTC (Mon) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
Open Core Licensing, as originally defined and then clarified in the provided URLs, covers the practice of combining a Free core with non-Free add-ons that offer high-value, enterprisey features. In what way do you think Linux and GNU+Linux distros that include non-Free add-ons diverge from this licensing model?
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 9, 2010 1:17 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] A couple of points:
Software-as-firmware vs software-as-software Posted Nov 9, 2010 9:30 UTC (Tue) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
There are important differences between shipping firmware with the device or separately. In the latter case, there may be additional restrictions for redistribution. If the non-free software does not allow redistribution, the combined package with Linux is something you are not allowed to redistribute. If the non-free software merely restricts redistribution to "Linux" as published by Linus, your right to fork is void.
There is also different impact of copyright law when applied to software-as-firmware and software-as-software. I suspect for example that the first sale doctrine which is recently and famously in question in the United States, works differently for a physical device where resale would be less problematic. But IANAL and where I am laws are different.
Software-as-firmware vs software-as-software Posted Nov 9, 2010 16:46 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] AFAICS, this point is moot: You are usually allowed to redistribute said firmware and use it on the device it is shipped for, no Linux restriction per se. Sure, in the ATMEL case it might be "firmware for use with the driver for Linux 2.6", but it is not restricted to it. What is funny is that by current FSF standards, no GNU code could ever have been written...
Software-as-firmware vs software-as-software Posted Nov 10, 2010 2:17 UTC (Wed) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
> by current FSF standards, no GNU code could ever have been written
This is not true. There is some incorrect assumption you're making about the FSF stance. I wonder what it is. Why do you think no GNU code could ever have been written?
Software-as-firmware vs software-as-software Posted Nov 11, 2010 17:51 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Because they now insist that everything has to be/run on "free software", even down to firmware for random devices; that certainly wasn't the idea when GNU was hailed as a nice complement to propietary Unices...
Software-as-firmware vs software-as-software Posted Nov 11, 2010 18:16 UTC (Thu) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link]
Nonsense.
They have never had any problem bootstrapping with non-free software. There point is simply that this should always be understood clearly as a temporary expedient, rather than an acceptable end-point.
Software-as-firmware vs software-as-software Posted Nov 11, 2010 19:30 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] So running forever on totally propietary Unices was fine, having an (eventually replaceable) blob loaded into some crevice of the system which is running otherwise "free" software isn't? I'd expect that kind of attitude given FLOSS was on at least 80% of desktops, until then...
Software-as-firmware vs software-as-software Posted Nov 11, 2010 21:47 UTC (Thu) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link]
"temporary"
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 9, 2010 13:37 UTC (Tue) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
> Linux kernel developers are not profiting from the firmware blobs in any way
Why would they have put them in, if it's not to their (presumed) advantage?
I can't count the number of times I heard phrases such as if we take out these blobs, nobody is going to buy our distro.
No profit motive? Sorry, I beg to differ vehemently.
Furthermore, it seems like the denial has focused mainly on the thin objection that Open Core is a business model, so if there's no separate sale, the criticism doesn't apply.
Last I looked, neither Free Software nor Open Source Software had to do wtih price, but rather with freedom. With that in mind, let's look at Phipps' article and Oliver's statement and see whether the objections to Open Core raised by them, particularly the ones we quoted in the announcement, disappear just because the profit or other advantages saught out of either deception is indirect, shall we?
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 9, 2010 15:04 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Obviously open source will be helped greatly if Linux distros cease to be able to work with most wireless adapters and virtually all modern graphics cards because you can't modify the (apparently desperately boring) firmware: meanwhile, the entirely proprietary competition can keep going, full strength.
I use nothing but free software on my home systems, excepting non-free firmware for which there is no effective replacement, and, y'know what? I think this is preferable than being stuck with Windows because I can't make my graphics card display anything without a few kB of non-free firmware.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 9, 2010 15:14 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Why would they have put them in, if it's not to their (presumed) advantage? What about »so people who happen to own the device in question actually get to use it with Linux«? Supporting a large variety of hardware devices makes Linux more of a viable proposition as a general-purpose operating system. This increases general interest in Linux and may even cause companies in the Linux business to make money, some of which may filter down to some kernel developers (not all of it to all of them). It is safe to say that many kernel developers are not in the game for personal monetary gain but because they enjoy doing difficult things for the benefit of the Linux community. This includes helping people actually use Linux (as opposed to preaching people sermons on what they really should be doing, buying, etc.) by adding whatever support is required for Linux to deal with the hardware that people have. These activities may earn most of them nothing except a certain amount of name recognition. I think this type of »advantage« is quite different from the very tangible advantage a company like SugarCRM, Inc., derives from selling the interesting pieces of their software for money. As an aside, labelling the kernel developers as enemies of software freedom when one does nothing, oneself, to advance software freedom except trying to curtail the freedom of others to make their own lifestyle choices is disingenuous. The community tends to listen to doers more than talkers – and the FSF of the 1980s at least tried actively to come up with and promote free alternatives to many proprietary software choices of the day, but I don't see the FSFLA trying to develop free replacements of the firmware they are attempting to expunge from the Linux kernel.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 19:24 UTC (Thu) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link]
There's a very good reason to get rid of opaque binary blobs. If some piece of HW can write to any memory location, it having buggy firmware can corrupt internal kernel (or user space) memory silently and you have no way to review these things.
Catching bad memory writes done by HW is really hard (how _you_ would do it?). And if you don't have source, how do you fix the firmware?
Otherwise I have neutral attitude to firmware. Linux is at least on desktop too small to have much effect on manufacturers. On embedded side it may make sense to refuse binary blobs to make sure that there's open firmware... Aat least until manufacturer stops selling the HW at which point refusing the blob probably doesn't anymore act as encouragement for opening.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 19:51 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
I don't think anyone disagrees that it would be preferable to have the source to all firmware. The disagreement rests upon whether, if we *are* going to have closed firmware, it's better to have it be runtime loadable (in which case it's much easier for us to replace it with open firmware, as happened in the b43 case) or for it to be in ROM (in which case it's impossible to replace and thus will never be open). I don't see how dropping support for runtime loadable firmware helps us encourage open replacements.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 3:04 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
I'd say the disagreement rests upon this straw man.
The issue is not whether users are allowed to use the non-Free firmware. Nobody's trying to stop them.
The issue is whether we, as a community, should encourage that. Whether we, as a community, should help vendors of hardware that requires non-Free Software capture customers. Whether we, as a community, want to encourage users to be happy slaves, keeping them comfortable and ignorant so that they will even invite others into the trap and feed the aggressors, or take a stand against non-Free Software with us.
The question really boils down to whether or not GNU+Linux distros and Linux should induce and help users accept the oppression from non-Free Software suppliers. The alternative is to refrain from aiding users in this regard. Which, again, doesn't mean *preventing* users from doing so: they wouldn't be stopped from obtaining and installing the non-Free Software, from those who *want* to oppress users.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 3:11 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
The problem is that removing loadable firmware support from the kernel does little to reduce the quantity of non-free firmware used in systems. To do that you'd also have to remove the drivers for all the hardware we know to be using non-free firmware. My understanding is that there's currently no completely functional open embedded controller firmware, so shouldn't you remove drivers/acpi/ec.c?
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 5:10 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
I don't know. Please help me understand what you're suggesting. How is it that drivers/acpi/ec.c encourages users to install non-Free Software?
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 13:40 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
Because every piece of hardware it manages contains non-free software.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 18:38 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
Yeah, but that software is installed by the manufacturer, not by the user, so that doesn't come even close to answering the question.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 21:54 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
How does Linux supporting hardware that can only (at present) function with non-free firmware not encourage the user to purchase that hardware and run non-free firmware? If the kernel didn't do it, they'd be forced to find a free alternative.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 13, 2010 7:37 UTC (Sat) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
Aah, thanks, I see what you mean now. I think the forcing part is not a good one, though. Nudging towards Free Software, I think is fine, but forcing is a bit too much unfreedom to me.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 3:49 UTC (Fri) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] Your statements are both nonsensical and insulting. You refer to the user community as "happy slaves". You characterize distros that work to deliver a system that is most likely to work out of the box on the widest variety of machines, and thereby attract new linux users, as "oppressing users" or "feeding the aggressors".At the start of this thread I was under the impression that the FSFLA had a positive, though unrealistic goal. You have now succeeded in convincing me that the FSFLA's goals (or at least your representation of them) are actively harmful to the adoption of linux. Should we as a community help and encourage users to use linux, even when that means accommodating their needs to use propriety hardware and non-free applications? Absolutely we should! Doing so does not "oppress" anyone. Rather it increases their range of options and therefore their freedom of choice. To advocate as you do that we should deliberately hide or avoid mentioning exactly the information that would allow potential users to realize that using linux is indeed an option -- well, that is counter-productive and just a really bad idea. It is especially counter-productive when you manage to insult everyone from developers to packagers to end users at the same time. Please stop it.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 5:17 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
For clarity, the oppressors are those who deny users their freedoms, i.e., the developers and original distributors of the non-Free Software. I wouldn't quite qualify as oppressors those who feed the aggressors, merely aiding them in capturing victims. If it seemed like I did, I apologize for the lack of clarity.
I don't see why the Free Software community should help and encourage users to use a non-Free kernel that induces them to install and use more non-Free Software, whose dependence on non-Free Software is growing faster than its Free core, and whose lead developer is proud of not being a member of the Free Software community, and despiteful to our social and ethical values while at that.
Choosing between non-Free systems is choice, but it's not freedom.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 5:49 UTC (Fri) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] Choosing between non-Free systems is choice, but it's not freedom.Nice aphorism. And now you have specifically relegated linux to that category, and castigated Linus for having the temerity to disagree with you. At the end of the road to ideological purity down which you are headed, there will be no useful systems left that are sufficiently pure to meet your peculiar definition of "free". At that point freedom will be just another word for nothing left to choose*. I hope you are happy when you reach that dead end, but I shall not join you there.
*which is not quite the way Dylan said it, but makes at least as much sense :-)
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 6:55 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
Whereas at the end of the road which you appear to be defending, there won't even be systems left that meet *your* definition of free any more.
I'd rather use whatever freedom and power of choice I have now to try to avert this course. I wish you would, too.
If we give up our freedom without a fight, we'll end up without it. If we fight for it, there's a chance we retain whatever we still have, and even gain back some of what we've already lost. I'd rather fight and risk failing than give it up and be certain of ending up without it.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 9, 2010 4:33 UTC (Tue) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
Let's go with the definition that's in the announcement itself.
> Free Bait, or Open Core as first coined by Andrew Lampitt, is a
Ok. So this definition deliberately obfuscates the difference between a project that *requires* a proprietary add-on, and a project that simply offers the ability to interoperate with existing proprietary software or hardware. I do not feel that your definition of Open Core is useful or widely accepted.
But let's follow this definition and see where it leads us. Are any GNU projects actually "FSFLA Open Core"?
Consider Gimp, the GNU Image Manipulation program. Gimp has features that allow it to run under Windows. Is Windows Free Software? No, it is not. Does running Gimp on Windows offer features that are not available if Gimp is run on other operating systems? Yes, it does. Certain printers, tablet input devices, and other hardware only have Windows drivers. By using the combination of Gimp and Windows, the user gains additional functionality. Therefore, Gimp is "FSFLA open core". Shock, horror!
The fact that you can run Gimp on operating systems that are Free apparently doesn't matter to the FSFLA. You can use the Linux kernel without binary blobs, too. The fact that the folks behind Gimp don't encourage you to use Windows or profit from Windows doesn't matter at all. Linus doesn't encourage or profit from binary blobs, either. The fact that Windows is an operating system, and Gimp is an image editor-- the "mere aggregation" of two unrelated products, as copyright law would have it, apparently doesn't matter either. Binary blobs loaded on firmwares are not derived works of the Linux kernel, either.
By this definition, any program that interoperates with proprietary software in any way-- any program that runs, or could be run by some "community member or distributor" on a proprietary platform, is "FSFLA open core."
Therefore, I claim that *all* FSF projects are open core.
Even GNU Hurd can be run inside a proprietary VMWare virtual machine. You will gain additional, premium features by doing this, like the ability to debug kernel crashes while running other programs on your computer. If you like, I will ship you a CD that contains both GNU Hurd and VMWare, hence tainting it forever in the eyes of the faithful. Are we done now?
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 9, 2010 14:11 UTC (Tue) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
Offering the ability to interoperate is not the problem. It's inducing users to get caught in a proprietary trap that makes it bait. It's offering the combination that makes the *combination* fit Free Bait/Open Core. See, it's covered in the definition: letting *others* offer non-Free extensions is not Free Bait/Open Core, as clarified in the announcement, a clarification drawn from Aslett's referenced article.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 9, 2010 15:54 UTC (Tue) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link]
Where is the trap in a graphics or network card that requires proprietary code loaded via the driver? I can replace it with another graphics or network card. There isn't the same 'lock-in' that exists with some software applications. And to the extent that there is dependence on a vendor-specific feature, this is an attribute of the hardware, not Linux.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 9, 2010 19:11 UTC (Tue) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
Network controllers are increasingly tied to the motherboard chipset, and value and compact mobos have few expansion points. For graphics, the prospect is even worse: AMD increasingly tying their CPUs to ATI GPUs, Intel exploring similar paths, and nVidia getting their own x86 CPU designs to be able to do the same. How long you think you'll still be able to "just" replace these cards?
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 10, 2010 9:50 UTC (Wed) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] How long you think you'll still be able to "just" replace these cards? For as long as you need a separate graphics card to play flashy proprietary 3D games at 1920x1080 high detail 60Hz. On-board CPUs tend to suck at that, because they're almost invariably sharing the host RAM with the CPU.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 10, 2010 20:50 UTC (Wed) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
First of all, I notice that you didn't reply to my central point: that all the FSF's projects are "FSFLA open core".
> Network controllers are increasingly tied to the motherboard chipset, and
From the perspective of freedom, Intel's drivers are a lot better than NVidia's. Some companies are indifferent towards open source drivers, but NVidia is actively hostile. Their driver contains a binary blob that's loaded into kernel space and interacts with X.org and other subsystems in very unwholesome ways.
Running closed-source firmware inside a sealed device is just not a big deal. Yes, we would all prefer if the firmware was open source, but that's not likely to happen in the near future. The important thing for freedom is the interfaces presented to developers and users. Proprietary user interfaces and APIs limit users' freedom by encouraging them to depend on non-free code.
The FSF's position on firmware is inconsistent. At various times, I have seen comments to the effect that if the firmware was implemented in hardware, or if it were burned into the chip and unchangeable, it would be ok. However, let's be generous and assume that the FSF just wants the code, all the code, all the time. Ok, fine. Even if they gave you all the code, you would need the circuit specifications in order to make any use of it. And even the circuit specifications are unusable without a chip fabrication facility. And that is unusable without...
And so we encounter an infinite regression that finally ends up with the perverse conclusion that nothing is truly free software. This is pure silliness. In practice, not having circuit schematics or firmware source code has not prevented great open source drivers from being written, and these drivers do promote the open source cause.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 4:29 UTC (Thu) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
> you didn't reply to my central point: that all the FSF's projects are "FSFLA open core"
I did. Upthread I wrote It's offering the combination that makes the *combination* fit Free Bait/Open Core.
As for promoting the open source cause, I don't dispute that a number of undesirable behaviors do. But that's not the cause I'm interested in. My cause is that of the Free Software movement, a cause concerned with the lack of ethics in denying users control over their computing, and the freedom to help their neighbors.
It is probably true that in your infinite regression, founded on open source ideas, you'd conclude that nothing is truly open source, because you don't seem to be taking the ethics into account.
Only when you do will you realize that, from an standpoint that takes both practical and ethical concerns into account, e.g. being denied access to source code of ROM or a hardware circuit doesn't make it any more difficult for you to adapt the device so that it does what you wish than if you had source code.
Once you see that difference, you might realize that software freedom may indeed exist, even when a piece of hardware is, well, hard-coded and opaque.
That's not to say that its being hard-coded and opaque is desirable, but it's outside the scope of Free *Software*, and, until duplicating hardware is as easy as duplicating software, it will be a lesser issue, in practical and ethical terms. IMHO ;-)
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 17:48 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] If just using a device with firmware in ROM is what you are after, surely having to place said firmware into the device's RAM doesn't detract one bit of your use of the device. It really does make you freer, as you have the option of placing other firmware on the device (which you haven't if it is ROM).
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 3:30 UTC (Fri) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
> It is probably true that in your infinite regression, founded on open
> source ideas, you'd conclude that nothing is truly open source, because > you don't seem to be taking the ethics into account.
My argument wasn't about the definition of "open source"; it was about the definition of "FSFLA open core," a very poorly thought-out concept.
You may argue that distributing the closed source binary blob makes the kernel FSFLA open core. But as I'm sure you're aware, not all firmwares are contained in the Linux kernel; some have to be cut out of the Windows driver or downloaded from the manufacturer's web site. It should be obvious to anyone that these are no more or less free than the others.
> Only when you do will you realize that, from an standpoint that takes both
How about a standpoint that takes logic into account? Allowing users the freedom to load new firmware on their devices gives them more freedom, by any reasonable non-Orwellian definition of the term, than disallowing firmware modification.
You should be embarrassed to promote the concept that locked-down devices, that can't be modified once they leave the factory, are better for the cause of open source than modifiable ones. You should be ashamed of attacking open source projects for doing what you also do-- allowing users to interoperate with non-free code and hardware. And you should realize that ridiculous announcements like this are destroying any credibility the FSF has left.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 5:07 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
> it was about the definition of "FSFLA open core," a very poorly thought-out concept.
Or rather poorly understood.
You seem to be dismissing that, in order for the combination of Free and non-Free Software to fit the Free Bait definition, the non-Free add-on must be offered by a distributor or contributor (community member in the announcement) of the Free core.
So, if we don't distribute the non-Free add-ons, we don't engage in Free Bait. If someone else who participates in Linux-libre did offer the combination, he'd be engaging in Free Baiting. A third party that offered only the add-ons would be just a regular non-Free Software distributor.
As for allowing users any freedom, I don't understand what that means. I'd understand *respecting* users' freedom, and we certainly don't fail to respect any such freedoms, because we don't prevent users from exercising the freedom. We don't set roadblocks, we just refrain from helping them get themselves trapped. If they install the non-Free software themselves, be it drivers or firmware, we won't stop them from running it (although, for current technical limitations, users might have to install a separate Free driver in order to use the corresponding non-Free firmware). That's not an attack on anyone's freedom, although some might resent the inconvenience.
As for embarrassment, you should be embarrassed of parroting this straw man one more time. After my stating several times that I don't hold that position and explaining why, you're just showing that you're not paying sufficient attention. If you want to take part in intelligent conversation, please pay some more attention.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 10, 2010 18:45 UTC (Wed) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
> Offering the ability to interoperate is not the problem. It's inducing
> users to get caught in a proprietary trap that makes it bait.
So when it's a project you're associated with, adding these features is "offering the ability to interoperate." When it's someone else's project, it's "inducing users to get caught in a proprietary trap."
Inducing users to use Windows is much more of a trap than inducing them to use a certain network card, which they can always swap out for a different card. Swapping out network cards is literally a 5 minute process; switching operating systems could take months or years for an individual or organization to fully accomplish.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 4:17 UTC (Thu) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
It seems that we're miscommunicating. In the English I've learned, inducing doesn't mean tolerating whatever unfortunate choices your party may have done, but rather trying to influence your party into doing something they might not have chosen to do otherwise.
So, if the kernel works with what the user chose, no problem in the kernel. But if the kernel asks the user to install something that's known to be non-Free Software, and refuses to work until the user complies, there's a freedom bug in the kernel.
Similarly, Free Software that works on Windows is tolerable, but Free Software that, if started on GNU/Linux-libre, demands the user to install Windows isn't.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 6:32 UTC (Thu) by sitaram (subscriber, #5959) [Link]
Usually the "user chose" the hardware already, and then it's either use the kernel because it has some blobs that help you use it, or not use Linux at all.
In an ideal world, people would say "oh, Linux doesn't work with this, so I wont buy this hardware". In the real world, they shoot the other way.
You cant call that inducing anymore than having a Windows version of GIMP is inducing the person to use Windows.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 6:56 UTC (Thu) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
> Usually the "user chose" the hardware already
If that is so, that's a reality we'd better try to change.
A number of people at least try a 100% Free distro before buying a computer or peripheral device. If more people did this, we'd see fewer users trapped to hardware that deprives them of freedom.
Now, if the hardware was already chosen and it can't be returned, the goal becomes to avoid spreading the mistake. If the user remains unaware that the device is a programmable computer programmed to control her and limit what she can do with it, odds are she will recommend it to others, so that's an argument against making it just work. Some slight inconvenience, such as requiring drivers and firmware to be obtained from the vendor, media, a third-party repository, and having to do that every time the system is reinstalled, will not prevent the user from using the device she's stuck with if she wants to, which is ok since the harm is already done and the monster is already fed, but it will help avoid the repetition of the mistake when the user upgrades or replaces the computer.
The approach taken by Linux-libre is a bit better than that, in that the driver will recognize a device that requires non-Free firmware instead of silently failing to work, and userland can then explain the problem to the user, and then the user can make an informed decision as to whether to seek a Free driver that will work with the non-Free firmware, or refrain from installing non-Free Software on their system, perhaps by replacing the hardware component.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 10:32 UTC (Thu) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link]
A point many people are trying to make here is that this is a tactical mistake.
> and then the user can make an informed decision as to whether to seek a Free driver that will work with the non-Free firmware, or refrain from installing non-Free Software on their system, perhaps by replacing the hardware component.
There is another option you seem to be ignoring: the user can refrain from using free software on their system, and go back to whichever operating system they were using before. And the user will recommend against free systems to others.
There is a reason the most popular distribution makes it easy (though I think it makes it too easy) to enabled closed drivers when the open option is not available (or sometimes even when it is). It is a bait: by making the distribution work very well, even if they have to sacrifice a bit of purity, they entice the user to use more and more free software instead of closed alternatives.
Yes, it is a bait, used in the exact opposite direction that you are fearing: instead of luring users to non-free, they are luring users to free.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 11:28 UTC (Thu) by sitaram (subscriber, #5959) [Link]
> Yes, it is a bait, used in the exact opposite direction that you are fearing: instead of luring users to non-free, they are luring users to free.
dang... that is what I was trying to say but you said it much better!
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 11:55 UTC (Thu) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
Enabling non-Free drivers and firmware is a growing problem. They're growing faster than the Free parts of those systems. They send users a message that it's ok to accept software that denies essential freedoms. That reasoning accummulates, and from few pieces of firmware under Free licenses and with sources, we went to tons of pieces of firmware under non-Free licenses, without licenses, without sources, while still pretending to be Free. Distros add non-Free drivers on top of that, and often non-Free applications. The set of non-Free firmware, drivers and applications is growing over time and, per your reasoning, that would be the right thing to do to avoid sending users away.
At this rate, eventually, we'll have a proportionally thin layer of Free Software surrounded by non-Free drivers and applications, and then I wonder whether you'll be asking yourself what the point was of trying to convince users to switch from one non-Free system to another in the first place.
Me, I prefer to tell users about software freedom first, get them to realize it's important, and make them jump when they're ready to. I don't fault any victims for finding out their current computers are enemies of their freedoms, or for installing pieces of software that will make them work as they wish, as long as they're aware of the problem and display an interest in correcting the purchasing mistake next time. If they're not interested in freedom, what's the point of suggesting them to go through the trouble of replacing one non-Free system with another? They might as well keep on using the non-Free system they're used to, perhaps with a bunch of Free Software applications that run on it. Yeah, they won't be as Free, but remember, in this case they were not interested in freedom.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 13:48 UTC (Thu) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link]
*scratches head*
I think this post of yours is perhaps the one which explains your position the clearest.
But it sounds as if you believe non-free is some sort of cancer which will spread if given even the thinnest of wedges, and push free software into the tiniest of niches. I am not that pessimistic.
I believe that, instead of only allowing a perfect system with no non-free components, it is better to attack on multiple layers at the same time, while accepting some temporary imperfection. While one team deals with freeing the core of an operating system kernel, another set of teams can deal with freeing the drivers, yet another set can deal with freeing the firmware, and in a corner another team is working on creating completely free hardware, and so on, all working independently and at the same time. Each team has to allow for some non-free parts while good free alternatives aren't available.
I also do not think the situation is getting worse. For a while, you had to use closed-source drivers if you wanted decent 3D acceleration on common desktops; nowadays, we are near having free decent 3D acceleration on common desktops, both with help of hardware vendors (AMD and Intel) and via sheer reverse engineering (nVidia). The situation with wireless drivers is similar; nowadays, even Broadcom has started helping (see http://lwn.net/Articles/404248/). The synergy advantages of free software start showing; with the free graphics drivers, we have kernel modesetting, and now even the kernel debugger can work with them. And I do not doubt that, as soon as nouveau is good enough that people do not feel the need to install the "official" nVidia drivers, the mechanisms which make the non-free driver easier to install will start to get neglected.
Finally, I do not think we must tell users about the philosophical side first. I myself started by using DJGPP, and only later learned of the philosophy. If you force users to learn about software freedom first, you will lose a lot of people who would learn about it later. And even if they do not learn or do not care about it, isn't it better, if only because of the network effects, that they use free software, even if only for part of their needs?
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 2:57 UTC (Fri) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
- Linus Torvalds, quoting Voltaire.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 3:25 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
> you will lose a lot of people who would learn about it later
Can't lose something I don't have.
> isn't it better, if only because of the network effects, that they use free software, even if only for part of their needs
For themselves, yes, it's better. For the Free Software movement, I'd say it isn't: if they're taught that short-term practical reasons are the reason to try Free Software, that will also get them away from software freedom when short-term practical advantages are present in non-Free Software. If they're taught that sacrificing their freedoms is ok, that's what they will do when offered bait that shines of short-term practical reasons. I.e., just when we'd most need them to stand firm with us for software freedom, they'd detract, because they haven't got the right message.
It is true that a few of those who start by learning the short-erm practical advantages will see through that and find out about the deeper, long-term practical and ethical reasons. But a majority doesn't. And when the majority doesn't stand for our values, our whole community is vulnerable: we lose, because the network effects, instead of favoring our goals of eliminating the non-Free Software oppression, play against them.
I wish I was just pessimistic, but a social experiment started in 1998 shows just how perverse that is. A group you might be familiar with launched a campaign to promote Free Software on its short-term practical benefits, leaving ethical values out of the picture. It got very popular, and the result is that a lot of software those who subscribe to that ideology produce is not quite Free, and many of them will attack and ridicule those who stand for software freedom.
I'd much rather the Free Software movement had grown slowly but surely, just not as slowly as it does now because of the detrimental effects of that campaign.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 3:38 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
> it sounds as if you believe non-free is some sort of cancer
I don't, and the difference is quite significant.
Cancer is a natural, biological phenomenom. As harmful as it is, it has no will of its own. The damage is not intentional, so it's not unethical, and there's no economic drive for the cancer to spread the harm.
Depriving others of software freedom is an artificial phenomenom. Many who engage in such a harmful practice do so intentionally, so as to obtain an economic advantage, including power over others. That is unethical, and the gained advantages imply it will tend to grow and concentrate power unless it meets strong resistance that renders the unethical behavior disadvantageous.
The Free Software movement is a movement to build up that resistance. Please help us!
I don't think Linux is "Open Core" Posted Nov 10, 2010 13:28 UTC (Wed) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642) [Link] There's no doubt that “Open Core” is a poorly defined term. However, I've come to the conclusion that whatever “Open Core” is, it is at least a special case of proprietary relicensing, whereby one entity has a monopoly on the relicensing of a codebase under non-copyleft terms. Linux is not this. It's very bad that Linux includes so much proprietary software as part of its default distribution, and I am very grateful that @lxoliva maintains Linux Libre to help document how much proprietary code is in Linux, and to give users who value software freedom an alternative version of Linux that's 100% Free Software. However, I think that @lxoliva's use of the term “Open Core” here only serves to make an ill-defined term even more confusing. — bkuhn Disclaimer: While I do serve on the Board of Directors of the FSF, the comments here reflect only my personal opinion, not the official opinion of FSF.
I don't think Linux is "Open Core" Posted Nov 10, 2010 19:41 UTC (Wed) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
I don't see why you consider proprietary relicensing as a requirement for Open Core. Indeed, it appears to me that you regard Open Core as covering even the practice of selling exceptions, which is explicitly excluded from the definition by both Aslett (downstream from Lampitt) and Mickos (upstream).
Linux and GNU/Linux distros have shown us that relicensing of the Free core isn't always necessary to offer non-Free add-ons to go with it, together or separately.
After all these discussions, I must agree that Open Core is understood in different ways by different people, but I'm not sure how much of it is a consequence of the way the definition is phrased, how much is just the normal sort of communication partnership in which different readers get different messages from the same text because of different personal backgrounds, and how much follows from the common twisting of meaning that we so often see term such as Free and Open Source undergo.
In retrospect, I'm very happy we used a different term, Free Bait, implicitly defined as equivalent to what we perceived and described as Open Core. It might be wise now to publish a stand-alone definition, independent from that of Open Core. Since our understanding of the meaning of Free Bait won't have changed, it's clear that Linux and GNU+Linux distros will still fit it, and that the deceptive practices of passing non-Free (or partially Free, as some prefer) for Free Software will still be subject to criticism, but it remains to be seen whether the criticism from third parties to the Open Core practices (however they understand them) will be sustained or retracted when it comes to Free Bait.
I don't think Linux is "Open Core" Posted Nov 10, 2010 22:10 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I'm not sure we're speaking the same language. In the English I speak, 'Linux supports my hardware, for which no free firmware exists, and for which no competition exists that has free firmware' is not code for 'Linux is bait for my hardware'. After all, what could I replace it with? Nothing?
There are some -- I'd venture to say many -- classes of hardware for which *every single device that exists* has non-free firmware: it's just that the firmware on some of those devices is burned into EEPROM. Your decision to allow the one but not the other based purely on whether there is (possibly upgradeable) non-free firmware in the device as shipped seems completely arbitrary to me.
I don't think Linux is "Open Core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 1:53 UTC (Thu) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
Say you're a fish living in an acquarium. The acquarium will rent boats for amateur fishermen to fish there.
At a certain moment, you're hungry, and all the food available to you turns out to be shrimp/worms/whatever around hooks. Does the fact that you don't have anything else to eat make them any less bait?
Now, the interesting bit to realize is that the reason you don't have anythiign else to eat is that you've already lost your freedom: living in such an acquarium, you can't possibly be Free.
If you were Free, you could swim elsewhere and try to get food (rather than bait) there. But you'd also have to be aware of the bait and the hook, to avoid getting caught.
Now, if you've already made your decision to be caught, be it to be taken to an acquarium, be it to become someone's dinner, nobody's stopping you. We're just exposing the deception: that some who claim to stand for your freedom are actually helping others keep you a happy slave. See the response to dwmw2 with this phrase for more on non-loadable firmware.
I don't think Linux is "Open Core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 1:58 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
so now the kernel developers are not only dishonest, they are slavers as well.
I don't think Linux is "Open Core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 7:26 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
But that means that the linux-libre kernel is *completely useless* for such hardware, until such time as the kernel devs write new firmware (which they very possibly aren't going to anytime soon because writing new firmware probably requires knowledge of the hardware unavailable to anyone without a lengthy reverse-engineering process). And as I've said, this applies to *entire classes* of hardware. (e.g. it's just luck and the need to display things in VGA mode at bootup that means it isn't true for all current graphics cards.)
I don't think Linux is "Open Core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 11:38 UTC (Thu) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
I don't know what *entire classes* of hardware you have in mind, but it seems like you're totally off in your guess. Linux-libre works just fine with nVidia, Intel, and ATi cards, all tested personally. Sure, you won't get 3D on ATi because that requires blobs.
Besides, nothing in Linux-libre stops you from installing drivers and accompanying firmware of your choice, so the completely useless assessment is, again, totally off.
I don't think Linux is "Open Core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 12:13 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Besides, nothing in Linux-libre stops you from installing drivers and accompanying firmware of your choice, so the “completely useless” assessment is, again, totally off. Right. So I install linux-libre and manually put all the »non-free« stuff I need to get my actual hardware running on top of it. Why would I want to do that instead of installing a stock distribution kernel from, say, Debian, which already comes with most of the stuff I need to get my hardware running, and makes it convenient to install the rest? Both options result in a system that the FSF would call »non-free«, but the Debian route is much less hassle, not to mention better-maintained and easier to upgrade as bugs get fixed.
I don't think Linux is "Open Core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 3:45 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
> Why would I want to do that instead of installing a stock distribution kernel from, say, Debian, which already comes with most of the stuff I need to get my hardware running, and makes it convenient to install the rest?
Precisely because this convenience will play against you and the community when the time comes to recommend a computer for someone else to buy, or even at your next purchase.
If you make it easy and convenient for yourself to remain captured, odds are you won't fight as hard to release yourself.
If you go through a painful experience, and you understand that the pain is inflicted by the hardware vendor rather than by the operating system community, you will work hard to avoid that pain next time.
It's a way of using your own emotional feedback for long-term personal and social advantage.
I don't think Linux is "Open Core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 9:21 UTC (Fri) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Precisely because this convenience will play against you and the community when the time comes to recommend a computer for someone else to buy, or even at your next purchase. Whenever I want to buy a new computer I take a Debian CD into the shop to check and see what it does to the machine I have in mind. If important parts don't seem to work I don't buy the computer, and tell the shop attendants why. I've been a Linux user since 1993, and so far, over the years Linux support has improved, not deteriorated, with every single computer I have bought. On my current laptop, which is a very nice machine with lots of built-in goodies, everything except for the fingerprint reader worked from the get-go. If you can live without 3D graphics for the sake of »freedom« then I can certainly live without a fingerprint reader. If you go through a painful experience, and you understand that the pain is inflicted by the hardware vendor rather than by the operating system community, you will work hard to avoid that pain next time. I don't know about you, but personally I avoid pain by not going through a painful experience in the first place if I can help it. I appreciate the efforts of the Linux kernel development community, the Debian project (as the makers of my preferred Linux distribution), and those hardware manufacturers who encourage Linux support for their products (who will always get my business in preference to other vendors). All of these together work very hard to help me avoid pain, and so far they have never let me down. I'm grateful.
I don't think Linux is "Open Core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 18:48 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
Thank you for being a good, freedom-supporting customer. I wish more people were like us.
Now, may I suggest that you use one of the 100% Free distros instead? Debian has been shipping a growing lot of non-Free firmware in its kernel for quite a long time. Your improved experience may unfortunately be a reflection of an illusion that the software you've tried is Free, while in reality some of the components only work because of the non-Free blobs hiding in there.
I applaud Debian's decision to push those blobs out of its main kernel for the upcoming release. If they also refrain from placing those blobs in the CDs you use for testing, you should start getting a more accurate picture of the reality of the situation.
Which, as you say, isn't as bad as it once was. Whereas before you'd only have hope of a fully functional computer selecting off-board components individually and assembling the computer yourself, it is nowadays possible to find mass-produced computers (netbooks, notebooks, desktops, workstations, servers) at mass retailers at affordable prices that will work 100% with a wholly Free operating system. Let's keep the pressure on!
I don't think Linux is "Open Core" Posted Nov 15, 2010 18:55 UTC (Mon) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link]
Debian is not a good example of a distro that includes non-free software. They have taken a fairly hard-line (but also somewhat pragmatic in terms of still getting a release out from time to time) on removing any non-free drivers. Blobs which are non-free but redistributable are still made available in the nonfree repository, so life is rather more convenient than I assume it is with linux-libre, (add the repo and install linux-firmware-nonfree) but I hope it's clear to users that they had to install some non-free software to make their hardware work, which is the fundamental point lxolivera wants made (and I agree with him that it's important).
There is a real tension here (as illustrated in this thread). For each user (that already has hardware needing non-free drivers) it is better if the distros just put it in. But this is bad for Free Software as a whole, because it legitimises non-free drivers and hardware, and reduces the incentive for people to buy free stuff.
I try very hard to buy only hardware that works with free drivers, but of course its often hard to know. One can't blame 'average' users from buying whatever is (cheapest and) in front of them, especially if the software freedom issues are not even explained. OK a lot of them couldn't care less anyway, but currently for those that _do_ care there is almost no pressure to make manufacturers label their hardware in a manner which allows consumer choice. And very little progress has been made on this in the last few years. The graphics card situation has improved (on the desktop), but got worse on embedded. Not sure if network cards and wireless cards is worse of better - I think it's improved a little in that free drivers are available for some cards, but things like DVB-T TV tuner cards is a sorry area, and no doubt so are 3G dongles and the like.
Almost everything now has some firmware in it, and not much of that firmware is free. This is a bad thing. And I don't think we are doing a good job of fixing this problem collectively. Do you expect it to be better or worse in 10 years time?
I don't know what the answer is here but I'm glad to see linux-libre at least making the point that this is a serious issue that is being allowed to slide. On the one hand its great to see Linux desktops becoming more mainstream daily, but if none of those users understand why free software matters then I'm not sure we have sustainable progress - we'll end up with most people using some free software surrounded by proprietary parts and users will only be marginally better off than they were using a fully proprietary system.
I guess for those that only care about Open Source as a development model, then software freedom per se doesn't really matter. I suppose it's that divide that makes this thread so long :-)
Free Bait (was: I don't think Linux is "Open Core") Posted Nov 10, 2010 22:42 UTC (Wed) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link]
The problem with "Free Bait" is that it implies malice (or at least to me sounds like it does). It implies that whoever is doing it wants to purposely deceive people as to their true intentions.
It is no wonder the discussion got so heated; people do not like being called liars.
Citation needed! Posted Nov 8, 2010 23:21 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] "Open core" is a specific business model based on keeping part of the code proprietary and forcing users to pay you for its use. This is quite novel idea, indeed. Can you, please, cite respactable source which says that you must "force users to pay" to qualify for "open core" label? I was under impression that things like Google Chrome (which includes proprietary Flash plugin and PDF reader plugin) are perceived as "open core" - even if Google distributes it for free. Linus does the same thing with Linux. We can discuss if it's good thing or bad thing (I personally think it's good thing) but it's "open core" by any sane definition.
Citation needed! Posted Nov 8, 2010 23:40 UTC (Mon) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link]
> This is quite novel idea, indeed. Can you, please, cite respactable source which says that you must "force users to pay" to qualify for "open core" label?
GP is right, 'open core' is a term used to describe a particular business model. As a business model, it speaks about how to make money.
Of course, you can use the two words 'open' and 'core' together and mean something else. It's confusing though, to people that are familiar with the term as it's currently used.
It's like using the words 'open' and 'source' and saying that "all JavaScript code on the web is open source - I can look at it!" as people say now and then. But the 'source being open' is not the same as 'open source', as the term is correctly used.
If you want some verification for the proper use of 'open core', just google it. The first result I got there is good enough:
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Core-Debate-The-Ba...
And in my case I got something different... Posted Nov 9, 2010 0:24 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] If you want some verification for the proper use of 'open core', just google it. The first result I got there is good enough: Interesting. I've tried to reproduce the experiment and got entirely different page. Which clearly says "the important thing to note is that in the dual license strategy a single code base is available under an open source or closed license, while with open core the closed source licensed code is a superset of the open source code". Looks like as with "open source" we have different definitions which are not always agree on details. But as for Linux - the difference is not so big: there are already some drivers which can only be used if you buy the Windows driver and pull the firmware blob from it (think winmodems), so Linux will satisfy even these requirements.
And in my case I got something different... Posted Nov 9, 2010 2:22 UTC (Tue) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link]
> I've tried to reproduce the experiment and got entirely different page. Which clearly says "the important thing to note is that in the dual license strategy a single code base is available under an open source or closed license, while with open core the closed source licensed code is a superset of the open source code".
Actually your article is also clear that it is a business model, here are some quotes from there:
> Open core is a commercial open source strategy
> the commercial license is a super-set of the open source product,
etc.
You picked a quote that compares dual-licensing with open core, and focuses on the licensing aspect. But the rest of the article is clear that open core is a commercial matter, a business model.
But again, it doesn't really matter what words we use, just as long as we are clear on what they mean. The Linux kernel is not commercial w.r.t the binary non-FOSS parts in it. Those parts are annoying, but not there for a commercial purpose. What we call that is less important.
And in my case I got something different... Posted Nov 9, 2010 14:18 UTC (Tue) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
There is Open Core Licensing, as canonically defined by Lampitt, and there are the Open Core Business Models it supports. Whether adding blobs and bait to Linux makes business sense is not the issue: the blobs are non-Free Software, the bait is harmful, and misrepresenting Linux and distros that include the blobs as Free (or Open Source), or as advantageous as, is bait-and-switch (Phipps' term) and deception (Oliver's word).
|
|||||||||||||