They needed to draw a line somewhere, and it made sense to draw it there in the 1980's or whenever. The unfortunate part is that rather than just pragmatically

They needed to draw a line somewhere, and it made sense to draw it there in the 1980's or whenever. The unfortunate part is that rather than just pragmatically saying baked in firmware wasn't their current concern, they created a rationalization about how it's more free to not be able to change your firmware. And once you put that kind of contradiction in your axioms, you're off to the races of poor conclusions. I'm pretty adamant about software freedom, but my own model involves computational domains and resulting security properties. CPU microcode is a pretty shitty thing, but it's in a similar camp to proprietary CPU designs so that's just where we are in 2024. Proprietary firmware in non-networked peripherals does not bother me at all. Updating firmware only bothers me to the extent that proprietary update processes require more work (including sandboxing to thwart any telemetry). Meanwhile proprietary BIOS, regardless of whether it gets updated, is a huge red flag based on how much access it has to the whole system plus the network. Having said that, this topic is where the FSF's definition actually has more relevancy. It is neat to be able to say everything in this tarball/cdimage/etc is 100% libre licensed, orthogonal to the implications for how it affects users' freedom. So doing the work here is seemingly worthwhile even if it's not fully necessary to serve the FSF's main goal. I just wish they'd stop focusing on this outmoded definition for things like the firmware blobs in Trisquel/Guix, which actually ends up harming user freedom/actualization by making for a poor experience that makes libre software look like some kind of religion based on purity rather than programmer self empowerment.