4 ms·

The FSF has no problem with non-free binary blobs on hardware, as long as they're burned into ROM[0]. The idea is that the firmware burned into ROM is not user

The FSF has no problem with non-free binary blobs on hardware, as long as they're burned into ROM[0]. The idea is that the firmware burned into ROM is not user serviceable - that it's never intended to be replaced and is intrinsically a part of the hardware. To have a completely different view when it comes to firmware that is loaded at initialization time seems a bit silly to me. This code is just as intrinsically a part of the function of the device, but instead of having to swap a board back to get a firmware update the firmware can be updated in the field. [0] https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html, specifically: 'The ethical issues of free software arise because users obtain programs and install them in computers; they don't really apply to hidden embedded computers, or the BIOS burned in a ROM, or the microcode inside a processor chip, or the firmware that is wired into a processor in an I/O device. In aspects that relate to their design, those things are software; but as regards copying and modification, they may as well be hardware. The BIOS in ROM was, indeed, not a problem.'

mehrdada 11y ago
My understanding is they draw the line at updatability: if someone else is able to change the code, then they can exercise unjust power over you (i.e. there's a power asymmetry between you and the vendor over who controls the device), whereas if it is just a fact of life that you cannot update a mask ROM, it is possible that there is no malicious intent from the vendor. It makes sense from the historical perspective, when it was cheaper to use a mask ROM than to incorporate flash memory, and you had to think hard about whether you have an incentive to push updates to the device. The economic incentive to the vendor consequently acted as a proxy metric to distinguish hardware from software. Admittedly, the line is more blurry now: you can do unethical things in mask ROMs (via crypto) to exert power over the user, a la trusted boot and DRM, and you can make things updatable by accident despite having no intentions to do so simply because flash is cheaper and more straightforward to install than mask ROMs.
dTal 11y ago
I think it's an eminently sensible place to draw the line. The problem is with "general purpose computers" whose program can be modified by the company you bought it from but not you. The asymmetry is the issue. It becomes outright abusive when the whole point of the product is to be a general purpose computer that can do "anything" (like a games console, which serves no purpose without games). If anything, the advent of the over-the-internet "updates" (which the user frequently can't control either) gives the entire issue a new urgency. In the case of "firmware", one must remember that it's a fuzzy (and misleading) term that used to refer to software that was in some sense "baked in" and hard to update, but is increasingly being used to refer to what amounts to an ordinary OS. If it has to be sent to the device on every boot, there's nothing "firm" about it - it's software, plain and simple.
em3rgent0rdr 11y ago
[0] is a sensible line for a metric of a certain level of success. Just because some ultimate goal of %100 free computing is not perfectly achievable nowadays doesn't mean shouldn't celebrate certain reasonable benchmarks.

mehrdada 11y ago

My understanding is they draw the line at updatability: if someone else is able to change the code, then they can exercise unjust power over you (i.e. there's a power asymmetry between you and the vendor over who controls the device), whereas if it is just a fact of life that you cannot update a mask ROM, it is possible that there is no malicious intent from the vendor. It makes sense from the historical perspective, when it was cheaper to use a mask ROM than to incorporate flash memory, and you had to think hard about whether you have an incentive to push updates to the device. The economic incentive to the vendor consequently acted as a proxy metric to distinguish hardware from software. Admittedly, the line is more blurry now: you can do unethical things in mask ROMs (via crypto) to exert power over the user, a la trusted boot and DRM, and you can make things updatable by accident despite having no intentions to do so simply because flash is cheaper and more straightforward to install than mask ROMs.

dTal 11y ago

I think it's an eminently sensible place to draw the line. The problem is with "general purpose computers" whose program can be modified by the company you bought it from but not you. The asymmetry is the issue. It becomes outright abusive when the whole point of the product is to be a general purpose computer that can do "anything" (like a games console, which serves no purpose without games). If anything, the advent of the over-the-internet "updates" (which the user frequently can't control either) gives the entire issue a new urgency. In the case of "firmware", one must remember that it's a fuzzy (and misleading) term that used to refer to software that was in some sense "baked in" and hard to update, but is increasingly being used to refer to what amounts to an ordinary OS. If it has to be sent to the device on every boot, there's nothing "firm" about it - it's software, plain and simple.

em3rgent0rdr 11y ago

[0] is a sensible line for a metric of a certain level of success. Just because some ultimate goal of %100 free computing is not perfectly achievable nowadays doesn't mean shouldn't celebrate certain reasonable benchmarks.