| |||||||||||||
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"Posted Nov 8, 2010 20:35 UTC (Mon) by foom (subscriber, #14868)In reply to: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" by lxoliva Parent article: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"
> As to whether non-Free code on flash memory is ok, I wonder where you got that idea from the announcement. If it's there at all, it was my mistake, and I'd very much like to correct it.
It's implicit in how the FSF is not campaigning against non-free firmware on flash memory shipped with devices, but they are against non-free firmware that users have to upload themselves every time the device is booted.
The practical effect of making it difficult to use uploadable non-free firmware with linux is that users may instead purchase hardware which has the non-free firmware stored in flash memory on the device.
This should be considered exactly as bad in terms of user freedom, except for two things:
It's a total lose.
(Log in to post comments)
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 8, 2010 20:57 UTC (Mon) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
It looks like you are mistaking FSFLA for a subsidiary of the FSF or some such, but it's an independent organization.
That said, there is *some* overlap in the shared opinions of all members of the FSF network, and there's also some difference between the opinions held by organizations and individuals. For clarity, what follows is my personal opinion.
Hardware circuits can't be modified by the users, but they don't generally present the ethical issue of creating artificial barriers for users to exercise this freedom, that non-Free Software on programmable computers generally does.
Programmable computers hidden inside hardware devices carry this ethical problem, but then a question that arises is, whose freedom is on the line. Say, if a hardware designer chooses between a hardware circuit and programmable non-volatile memory, the presented interface to the user is exactly the same, so one could argue it's within the hardware designer's freedom, in much the same way that say a service provider can decide what tools to use to perform a job s/he was hired to perform.
Now, the moment the service provider tells the user I need you to provide me with $whatever so that I can do the job, the user-visible interface changed, and now the user takes an active role in the process. When it comes to user-uploadable blobs, tt becomes perfectly clear that there is a programmable computer in there, and the only reason the user can't control it is because of the unethical imposition by the hardware designer, who's shifting costs to third-party distributors.
That's why I perceive the latter as a more serious offence, but I don't entirely dismiss the issue of hardware with non-volatile memory, or even hardware circuits. Denying access to specs that would enable users to copy and adapt the hardware (it's getting closer to possible), know in detail what it does or doesn't, verify that it is so, and adapt it so it does what you wish, are not quite the issues that the Free *Software* movement deals with, but there are similar ethical issues in there, and they are getting more relevant as they approach the realm of the possible.
So, even though uploadable non-Free firmware is a present problem, I keep the hardware-related freedoms on sight, for I consider them worth fighting for.
|
|||||||||||||