| |||||||||||||
I don't think Linux is "Open Core"I don't think Linux is "Open Core"Posted Nov 10, 2010 13:28 UTC (Wed) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642)In reply to: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" by lxoliva Parent article: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||