4 ms·

> Secondly, why was rpi.org caught adding DRM chips to their optional camera addon board? to stop counterfeit boards. There are many _other_ cameras that you c

> Secondly, why was rpi.org caught adding DRM chips to their optional camera addon board? to stop counterfeit boards. There are many _other_ cameras that you can use for the rpi, so its not like they are trying to block out competition. its to stop people making illegal clones and ripping people off. (cough I'm looking at you amazon) see semi official explanation here: https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=149426 https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=149426 The people that make the raspberry pi are a not for profit, they use the money made to sponsor children learning to code. Its not like they hide their aims: https://static.raspberrypi.org/files/about/RaspberryPiFoundationStrategy2018%E2%80%932020.pdf https://static.raspberrypi.org/files/about/RaspberryPiFounda... tl;dr: its to stop people making knockoffs, taking money from a foundation who are trying to educate an entire generation.

hlandau 7y ago
Thanks to you and @kingosticks above for digging up these official accounts. Cursory examination of rpi firmware suggests that this DRM logic is implemented in start.elf, one of the proprietary blobs required to boot an rpi. This is, in itself, significant, since opening this blob would obviously make this restriction easy to circumvent. In other words, rpi have taken design decisions which essentially motivate them not to open up these boot blobs, but rather use them as a chokepoint of control over the platform, see also [1]. From this, we can infer that rpi.org will probably never get rid of these boot blobs (as opposed to simply not having found the time/resources to do something about them). [1] https://github.com/nucular/raspi-keygen https://github.com/nucular/raspi-keygen
- kingosticks 7y ago
  You are right, they probably won't open the blobs if it means circumventing their own DRM, which I think has been shown to be used reasonably. The mpeg license has almost the same argument as the v2 camera, I think we have covered that. But that aside, "as a chokepoint of control over the platform"? What platform are you specifically talking about?
- HeadsUpHigh 7y ago
  The same could be said about the VideoCore 4 blob which was used to boot the SoC. And yet they just did get rid of it.
  - makomk 7y ago
    I don't think they got rid of the blob, so much as moved it from the SD card to an onboard SPI flash more like you'd find on a typical PC. It's still there and even more required to boot the board than on previous Pis, but people distributing images no longer have to worry about the licensing and other headaches that were caused by having to include it.
    - HeadsUpHigh 7y ago
      There's a mainline driver that according to their own statements is now used for the gpu. Whether there's a firmware blob underneath it is a whole other story and as long as it's not something that has to be distributed with the OS I don't see how it should be treated any different than e.g. the AMD or intel gpus.
neilv 7y ago
IIUC, you're saying that, for the Raspberry Pi designers, being open hardware is not only not a requirement, but there's actually requirements to be aggressively closed hardware in some regards?
- KaiserPro 7y ago
  I don't think one can paint attempting to stop counterfeit cameras (which were aggressively counterfeited) as being aggressively closed hardware. Look Rpi have a clear goal, to get kids coding. Everything, and I mean _everything_ they do is to further that goal. One part of that is to have a platform that is, safe, easy, expandable and _cheap_. A side effect of that is that its mostly open. Now, is it as open as say fabbing your own RISC-V SoC? no. But then that would cost a boat load of cash, and it would then be cloned and resold by third parties. Thus, no money for education. (worse still, dangerous counterfeits might be bought by schools, cause injury leading to legal action.) So, being pragmatic, and noting that the ecosystem is far more valuable to me, and almost everyone else, than the hardware, I will accept this behaviour.
  - neilv 7y ago
    It's fine if that's their requirements, but that wasn't clear originally. It seems that people who care about technology open standards, open source, and open hardware need a clear understanding of Raspberry Pi requirements, and that they're actually getting hardware that is more closed than a typical PC. (Related: Starting over a decade ago, some IBM ThinkPad models infamously whitelisted mini-PCIe cards, so that only a small set of particular cards could be used, which was very unusual for PC hardware based on open standards. One of the biggest practical reasons to put Coreboot on those ThinkPads is to get rid of the awful whitelisting, so that people could use whatever cards they wanted, including using WiFi cards supporting later standards and working without having to download closed firmware blobs.)
    - KaiserPro 7y ago
      It was always the requirement. It was designed as a machine to replace the BBC micro. most PCs have BIOS, which is closed source, and difficult to get access to. yes there are opensource alternatives, but they are not entirely practical. Most modern PCs have a TPM, EFI and a whole host of other bits that make opensource drivers exceedingly difficult. Then there is the graphics card, where if you want to actually have decent speed it means closed source drivers (I'm talking nVidia/ATI, intel doesn't really count as they are adding GPUs as a value add, not a core business.) Harddrives have closed source and obfuscated software that actually does the writing/reading. Then there is the out-of-band management that is shoehorned into a lot of Intel and AMD's kit. so, to say that it is more closed than a PC, is either ignorance or hyperbole. Also, you have to remember that yes, the PC was based around open standards, but not open source. You still had to pay to get certified, or even get access to the spec. Considering that you can attach any hardware either in the form of a HAT, or via the CSI, I think the argument is flawed. Again, there is nothing stopping people using a clone, if they so wish. But all the rpi clones appear to be mediocre at best.

hlandau 7y ago

Thanks to you and @kingosticks above for digging up these official accounts. Cursory examination of rpi firmware suggests that this DRM logic is implemented in start.elf, one of the proprietary blobs required to boot an rpi. This is, in itself, significant, since opening this blob would obviously make this restriction easy to circumvent. In other words, rpi have taken design decisions which essentially motivate them not to open up these boot blobs, but rather use them as a chokepoint of control over the platform, see also [1]. From this, we can infer that rpi.org will probably never get rid of these boot blobs (as opposed to simply not having found the time/resources to do something about them). [1] https://github.com/nucular/raspi-keygen https://github.com/nucular/raspi-keygen

kingosticks 7y ago
You are right, they probably won't open the blobs if it means circumventing their own DRM, which I think has been shown to be used reasonably. The mpeg license has almost the same argument as the v2 camera, I think we have covered that. But that aside, "as a chokepoint of control over the platform"? What platform are you specifically talking about?
HeadsUpHigh 7y ago
The same could be said about the VideoCore 4 blob which was used to boot the SoC. And yet they just did get rid of it.
- makomk 7y ago
  I don't think they got rid of the blob, so much as moved it from the SD card to an onboard SPI flash more like you'd find on a typical PC. It's still there and even more required to boot the board than on previous Pis, but people distributing images no longer have to worry about the licensing and other headaches that were caused by having to include it.
  - HeadsUpHigh 7y ago
    There's a mainline driver that according to their own statements is now used for the gpu. Whether there's a firmware blob underneath it is a whole other story and as long as it's not something that has to be distributed with the OS I don't see how it should be treated any different than e.g. the AMD or intel gpus.

neilv 7y ago

IIUC, you're saying that, for the Raspberry Pi designers, being open hardware is not only not a requirement, but there's actually requirements to be aggressively closed hardware in some regards?

KaiserPro 7y ago
I don't think one can paint attempting to stop counterfeit cameras (which were aggressively counterfeited) as being aggressively closed hardware. Look Rpi have a clear goal, to get kids coding. Everything, and I mean _everything_ they do is to further that goal. One part of that is to have a platform that is, safe, easy, expandable and _cheap_. A side effect of that is that its mostly open. Now, is it as open as say fabbing your own RISC-V SoC? no. But then that would cost a boat load of cash, and it would then be cloned and resold by third parties. Thus, no money for education. (worse still, dangerous counterfeits might be bought by schools, cause injury leading to legal action.) So, being pragmatic, and noting that the ecosystem is far more valuable to me, and almost everyone else, than the hardware, I will accept this behaviour.
- neilv 7y ago
  It's fine if that's their requirements, but that wasn't clear originally. It seems that people who care about technology open standards, open source, and open hardware need a clear understanding of Raspberry Pi requirements, and that they're actually getting hardware that is more closed than a typical PC. (Related: Starting over a decade ago, some IBM ThinkPad models infamously whitelisted mini-PCIe cards, so that only a small set of particular cards could be used, which was very unusual for PC hardware based on open standards. One of the biggest practical reasons to put Coreboot on those ThinkPads is to get rid of the awful whitelisting, so that people could use whatever cards they wanted, including using WiFi cards supporting later standards and working without having to download closed firmware blobs.)
  - KaiserPro 7y ago
    It was always the requirement. It was designed as a machine to replace the BBC micro. most PCs have BIOS, which is closed source, and difficult to get access to. yes there are opensource alternatives, but they are not entirely practical. Most modern PCs have a TPM, EFI and a whole host of other bits that make opensource drivers exceedingly difficult. Then there is the graphics card, where if you want to actually have decent speed it means closed source drivers (I'm talking nVidia/ATI, intel doesn't really count as they are adding GPUs as a value add, not a core business.) Harddrives have closed source and obfuscated software that actually does the writing/reading. Then there is the out-of-band management that is shoehorned into a lot of Intel and AMD's kit. so, to say that it is more closed than a PC, is either ignorance or hyperbole. Also, you have to remember that yes, the PC was based around open standards, but not open source. You still had to pay to get certified, or even get access to the spec. Considering that you can attach any hardware either in the form of a HAT, or via the CSI, I think the argument is flawed. Again, there is nothing stopping people using a clone, if they so wish. But all the rpi clones appear to be mediocre at best.