this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
45 points (80.8% liked)

Open Source

31717 readers
124 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

They say that GNU is spreading misinformation and "stop getting info from charlatans"?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] exu@feditown.com 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, the FSF isn't against firmware blobs, only against those updatable by a user.

From their Respects Your Freedom requirements page.

However, there is one exception for secondary embedded processors. The exception applies to software delivered inside auxiliary and low-level processors and FPGAs, within which software installation is not intended after the user obtains the product. This can include, for instance, microcode inside a processor, firmware built into an I/O device, or the gate pattern of an FPGA. The software in such secondary processors does not count as product software.

This means that proprietary firmware flashed at the factory and impossible to replace gets a pass, while hardware with firmware updates through blobs is rejected. Important security fixes (CPU microcode) or stability improvements will be missing if you can't update the firmware.

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And thats why they advocate open hardware

[–] exu@feditown.com 6 points 4 months ago

Sure and that's the ideal, but as it currently stands the FSF would rank hardware like this:

  1. Fully open source
  2. Proprietary flashed in factory and impossible to replace
  3. Proprietary and can be updated/replaced

This makes no sense for security, stability or ideological reasons.