3 ms·
> it's OS is endorsed by the FSF as truly free. To meet the FSF's definitions of free, they had to make the (still required) proprietary firmware read-only ins
by messe 6y ago
> it's OS is endorsed by the FSF as truly free.
To meet the FSF's definitions of free, they had to make the (still required) proprietary firmware read-only instead of allowing it to be loadable by the user.
EDIT: see below.
- fsflover 6y agoIt’s not read-only. You can reflash it if it’s really necessary: https://forums.puri.sm/t/does-respects-your-freedom-certification-allow-updating-of-proprietary-firmware/9484/12 https://forums.puri.sm/t/does-respects-your-freedom-certific...
- messe 6y agoAh, I stand corrected. But it's still a silly distinction. It's utterly bizarre to me that something that a device that allows everything to be modified from the CPU is considered non-free if any of that code is non-free, but if that same non-free code is used on a chip that's only flashable using a more difficult method, the device can be considered freedom respecting.