| |||||||||||||
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"Posted Nov 9, 2010 1:17 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)In reply to: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" by lxoliva Parent article: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" A couple of points:
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||