3 ms·

I couldn't find "FSF did not certify the phone, because they did not receive the units yet" in the links you posted. Purism has been tight-lipped about getting

I couldn't find "FSF did not certify the phone, because they did not receive the units yet" in the links you posted. Purism has been tight-lipped about getting ryf certification. These maneuvers around memory and hdmi look more like cheating to me. According to the links I posted, i.MX8 cannot be deblobbed. I stand by what I say: I don't think the librem-5 will ever get ryf-certified.

fsflover 5y ago
> I couldn't find "FSF did not certify the phone, because they did not receive the units yet" in the links you posted. Just below the picture of the phone, first sentence: While we're still waiting to get our hands on one, this device looks promising: https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v11 https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v11. > These maneuvers around memory and hdmi look more like cheating to me. Why does it matter to you that a secondary CPU which has no access to anything runs proprietary blobs to train the RAM? Do you also care about proprietary firmware of SSDs (and avoid them)?
- marcodiego 5y ago
  > > I couldn't find "FSF did not certify the phone, because they did not receive the units yet" in the links you posted. > Just below the picture of the phone, first sentence: While we're still waiting to get our hands on one, this device looks promising: https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v11 https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v11. I'd still argue that it is a bit different from "FSF did not certify the phone, because they did not receive the units yet". > > These maneuvers around memory and hdmi look more like cheating to me. > Why does it matter to you that a secondary CPU which has no access to anything runs proprietary blobs to train the RAM? Do you also care about proprietary firmware of SSDs (and avoid them)? To makes things clear: I'm not opposed to the "secondary processor exception". In this case specifically, the firmware was artificially stored on a ROM chip, and copied from there to "a secondary processor" by the main processor to unlock a feature (train the RAM) to allow the main processor to work properly. This is a bit too much for me. Also, I'm not sure the HDMI initialization runs on a secondary processor. Also, librem-5 getting ryf-certified would make me very very happy. I really would love to see this happen.
  - pabs3 5y ago
    The "secondary processor exception" is abhorrent, it creates a perverse incentive for vendors who seek RYF to lock down firmware instead of leaving it open to reverse engineering and reimplementation by the community. A better approach would be to require public documentation of which components are proprietary (for all processor ISAs, processors, other hardware, all firmware and all software) and what roles they play.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      I don't see where it creates the incentive to lock down firmware. Any examples? For example, in Librem 5, you can still upgrade the firmware for modem and WiFi: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/community-wiki/-/wikis/Frequently-Asked-Questions#39-will-the-librem-5-get-proprietary-firmware-updates https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/community-wiki/-/wikis/Freque.... Documentation would be great of course anyway.

fsflover 5y ago

> I couldn't find "FSF did not certify the phone, because they did not receive the units yet" in the links you posted. Just below the picture of the phone, first sentence: While we're still waiting to get our hands on one, this device looks promising: https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v11 https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v11. > These maneuvers around memory and hdmi look more like cheating to me. Why does it matter to you that a secondary CPU which has no access to anything runs proprietary blobs to train the RAM? Do you also care about proprietary firmware of SSDs (and avoid them)?

marcodiego 5y ago
> > I couldn't find "FSF did not certify the phone, because they did not receive the units yet" in the links you posted. > Just below the picture of the phone, first sentence: While we're still waiting to get our hands on one, this device looks promising: https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v11 https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v11. I'd still argue that it is a bit different from "FSF did not certify the phone, because they did not receive the units yet". > > These maneuvers around memory and hdmi look more like cheating to me. > Why does it matter to you that a secondary CPU which has no access to anything runs proprietary blobs to train the RAM? Do you also care about proprietary firmware of SSDs (and avoid them)? To makes things clear: I'm not opposed to the "secondary processor exception". In this case specifically, the firmware was artificially stored on a ROM chip, and copied from there to "a secondary processor" by the main processor to unlock a feature (train the RAM) to allow the main processor to work properly. This is a bit too much for me. Also, I'm not sure the HDMI initialization runs on a secondary processor. Also, librem-5 getting ryf-certified would make me very very happy. I really would love to see this happen.
- pabs3 5y ago
  The "secondary processor exception" is abhorrent, it creates a perverse incentive for vendors who seek RYF to lock down firmware instead of leaving it open to reverse engineering and reimplementation by the community. A better approach would be to require public documentation of which components are proprietary (for all processor ISAs, processors, other hardware, all firmware and all software) and what roles they play.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    I don't see where it creates the incentive to lock down firmware. Any examples? For example, in Librem 5, you can still upgrade the firmware for modem and WiFi: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/community-wiki/-/wikis/Frequently-Asked-Questions#39-will-the-librem-5-get-proprietary-firmware-updates https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/community-wiki/-/wikis/Freque.... Documentation would be great of course anyway.