4 ms·
It sure sucks that device makers just have to wait and hope someone writes free firmware. If only they had some way to cause the firmware to be written, perhaps
by csande17 5y ago
It sure sucks that device makers just have to wait and hope someone writes free firmware. If only they had some way to cause the firmware to be written, perhaps involving things like "money" or "employees" or "contracts with vendors".
The alternatives to this policy are allowing all blobs, in which case the RYF certification isn't actually verifying anything, or not allowing any blobs, in which case RYF cannot certify any devices made after 2009 (something the author also takes issue with). Making it expensive and risky for device makers to rely on blobs is the only middle ground that makes sense.
- kaba0 5y agoYou seem to miss that these devices are often full of patented parts, so in most cases even if the manufacturer wanted to, they can’t provide sources. Also, modems are often legally mandated to have certain firmware (so that restricted frequencies are adhered to)
- seba_dos1 5y ago> even if the manufacturer wanted to, they can’t provide sources In many cases they don't even have them or may not be aware that there's an upgradable firmware in some of the components they're using at all.
- yxhuvud 5y agoNo, the alternative is to not be a binary yes or no certification, but to construct a nonbinary scale to measure how free it is.
- int_19h 5y agoWhy would they spend time and effort on this, when there's a far simpler way to get the certification with existing non-free blobs?