> 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
> 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
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.