That makes clear exactly what the problem with it is. It is an all or nothing clause: it doesn't promote openness so much as it requires the hardware reseller to choose - either go open fully, go or the easier route of no rights for anyone.
That second option is technically inferior, often worse for security and usability; but in companies that lack understanding and/or practice of open source, much easier to understand and thus sell, and thus it is the choice to make for many such companies. And they are still a big factor, or even the majority.
In theory both the software blob and the hardware ROM can be reverse-engineered and updated with free components, given enough effort. But this is much cheaper and easier to do with a software update than with hardware, which makes the 2nd option in practice worse for the FOSS community, certainly in the short run.
Theoretically then, this view is consistent, true, but in practice it doesn't clearly promote openness, nor a good path towards getting there, which is what ideally would be provided, as that would practically help improve the landscape for open software and hardware.
It is therefore not surprising that dlang, and many others, view it as going in the wrong direction, I'd think.
Copyright © 2018, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds