3 ms·
> Because the FSF has an absolutely asinine definition of "free software" wherein any code that can be modified or updated is non-free, but if it comes from an
by ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
> Because the FSF has an absolutely asinine definition of "free software" wherein any code that can be modified or updated is non-free, but if it comes from an untouchable ROM chip they can pretend it's still "free"
So mask ROM or OTP ROM are okay, but EPROM/EEPROM/flash are not?
- ahartmetz 4y agoExactly. It is counterintuitive, but they have to draw the line somewhere, and then such things happen. No way around it without making up some rather arbitrary new definitions, with all that problems(1) that that brings. Well, actually. The distinction between hardware (here: basically 3D-printed VHDL et al) and software is already such an arbitrary definition. (1) like manufacturers tweaking details to fall under the desired definition, legal arguments about the definitions, etc...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- zajio1am 4y agoNo, distribution of non-free firmware is not ok, while interacting with firmware that is already there (e.g. from ROM or EEPROM) is okay.