> So we both say the same thing with different words. I agree, which is why there is a call to FSF for change. I thought you were saying that hardware is whate

> So we both say the same thing with different words. I agree, which is why there is a call to FSF for change. I thought you were saying that hardware is whatever "cannot be updated". That's the argument the FSF uses to say ROM firmware is OK because it's not software. I'm saying that's not okay, because updatability is a plus, not a minus, and ROMs are still software. > Concerning the Librem 5, if the proprietary blob can be isolated such that it can't access RAM or CPU, it's better for the user and makes the device more free, in my opinion. The obfuscation in the Librem 5 did absolutely nothing to isolate the proprietary blob in any way, shape, or form. It would always run on a dedicated CPU, from the get-go (and that CPU is part of the RAM controller, so it is a security risk for the entire system either way). They added a third CPU in the loop to load the blob, because somehow touching the blob from the main CPU gives it the digital equivalent of cooties in the FSF's view, but adding this extra step of indirection makes it all OK. And then they put the blob in a separate Flash memory so it wouldn't live in the same flash as the main open firmware, because that somehow helps freedom too? Seriously, that whole story is just utterly stupid no matter which way you look at it.