3 ms·

> r.w.-memory becomes r.o. can actually make hardware change from not-free into free. It's about equal rights. For instance, if the manufacturer can provide se

> r.w.-memory becomes r.o. can actually make hardware change from not-free into free. It's about equal rights. For instance, if the manufacturer can provide security updates, but you can't, they can notify the NSA about security holes first before providing the update. Whereas if it is r.w. for all, anyone can provide security updates.

Blikkentrekker 5y ago
Not quite. In the F.S.F.'s definition, even if the manufacturer provided a full documentation of the hardware and thus an ability to write free drivers, but none had simply done so and it must thus be shipped with proprietary drivers, then making it r.o. renders the entire hardware “free”. In fact, a literal reading of the F.S.F.'s definition would make a computer with Windows on it, provided that it be burned into r.o. memory meet the terms of their Respects Your Freedom mark, though perhaps they would refuse in that case due to a clear violation of the spirit of the rules. The problem is that by the F.S.F.'s definition, one can sidestep it all by simply burning any proprietary software into r.o.m., as then it is hardware, not software. This paradox is the result of the F.S.F.'s insistence that the world can be neatly partitioned binarily into products that are entirely composed of “free software” and those that are not, and a want of such a binary partition often creates such bizarre paradoxes.
- fsflover 5y ago
  > the F.S.F.'s insistence that the world can be neatly partitioned binarily into products that are entirely composed of “free software” and those that are not, and a want of such a binary partition often creates such bizarre paradoxes. There is no such insistence by the FSF. They simply chose such boundary for giving their certification. It does not mean we should not go further than that, and FSF would of course encourage you to make even more freedom-respecting hardware. If FSF would demand absolutely free hardware, there would be no devices to certify.
  - Blikkentrekker 5y ago
    That is but displacing the problem; the same problem still exists in the sense that devices are certifiable, or not. Rather, the F.S.F. should offer a description of checkboxes on devices of which important things they do and do not do, allowing users to easily select the devices with the checkboxes they value.
- crazypython 5y ago
  FSF chooses to draw the line between "hardware" and "software" at "read-writable." Arguably if Alexa's AI was burned onto a ROM, you could argue the entire Alexa speaker was a hardware appliance. The alternative is requiring a microwave's control software to be fully free.
  - Blikkentrekker 5y ago
    Yes, that is the alternative if one stubbornly choose to believe that the world can binarily partitioned into free and proprietary. — such paradoxes often derive from such a mentality.

Blikkentrekker 5y ago

Not quite. In the F.S.F.'s definition, even if the manufacturer provided a full documentation of the hardware and thus an ability to write free drivers, but none had simply done so and it must thus be shipped with proprietary drivers, then making it r.o. renders the entire hardware “free”. In fact, a literal reading of the F.S.F.'s definition would make a computer with Windows on it, provided that it be burned into r.o. memory meet the terms of their Respects Your Freedom mark, though perhaps they would refuse in that case due to a clear violation of the spirit of the rules. The problem is that by the F.S.F.'s definition, one can sidestep it all by simply burning any proprietary software into r.o.m., as then it is hardware, not software. This paradox is the result of the F.S.F.'s insistence that the world can be neatly partitioned binarily into products that are entirely composed of “free software” and those that are not, and a want of such a binary partition often creates such bizarre paradoxes.

fsflover 5y ago
> the F.S.F.'s insistence that the world can be neatly partitioned binarily into products that are entirely composed of “free software” and those that are not, and a want of such a binary partition often creates such bizarre paradoxes. There is no such insistence by the FSF. They simply chose such boundary for giving their certification. It does not mean we should not go further than that, and FSF would of course encourage you to make even more freedom-respecting hardware. If FSF would demand absolutely free hardware, there would be no devices to certify.
- Blikkentrekker 5y ago
  That is but displacing the problem; the same problem still exists in the sense that devices are certifiable, or not. Rather, the F.S.F. should offer a description of checkboxes on devices of which important things they do and do not do, allowing users to easily select the devices with the checkboxes they value.
crazypython 5y ago
FSF chooses to draw the line between "hardware" and "software" at "read-writable." Arguably if Alexa's AI was burned onto a ROM, you could argue the entire Alexa speaker was a hardware appliance. The alternative is requiring a microwave's control software to be fully free.
- Blikkentrekker 5y ago
  Yes, that is the alternative if one stubbornly choose to believe that the world can binarily partitioned into free and proprietary. — such paradoxes often derive from such a mentality.