3 ms·

> You can't use the software in the way you want if it uses hardware backed cryptography to block you from doing so. You can use the software the way you want,

by palata 1mo ago

> You can't use the software in the way you want if it uses hardware backed cryptography to block you from doing so. You can use the software the way you want, from sources. If I run an open source server at home, it does not give you the right to enter my house and come reboot my server, does it? > This is completely infeasible for 99% of the population Sure, it isn't. Still that's what software freedom is. > If you technically have a freedom but have no practical way to exercise it, it may as well not exist. I disagree, I'm very happy that free software exists. > I think it's debatable at that point whether you'd still be running Graphene It's not: you're running a fork at that point. That's precisely how free software works. > And if exercising your freedom requires you to stop running Graphene and start running something else, is it really fair to say Graphene itself supports that freedom? Yes! Again that's precisely what software freedom is about! When you run GrapheneOS, you have the freedom to fork it and run it however you want. When you run Windows or macOS, you don't. > If you're still not convinced, consider what would happen if companies started using remote attestation to verify you're running the official GrapheneOS build and block forks... Well GrapheneOS would still be free software?!?!? It's the software from those companies that wouldn't be. I hate remote attestation as much as the next person, and typically banks absolutely suck because they love doing that kind of bullshit. But because banks suck does not mean that GrapheneOS is not free software? Note that I am not trying to contradict you for the sake of it. I believe too few people understand how open source works, and that is a pity because it is important to understand it. When I open source some code I wrote, I make it available for people to do whatever they want with the code. I don't give them ANY RIGHT on the products I sell (even if those products are running said open source software) or on the feature I implement. Too many people believe that because it's open source, they have a right to tell the authors what features they should implement. This is wrong. You want root access on your GrapheneOS? Go fork it. I don't want it, I am happy with GrapheneOS. If GrapheneOS gave me root access, I would fork it to remove it. And that would still be free software!

Ajedi32 1mo ago
> Well GrapheneOS would still be free software?!?!? It's the software from those companies that wouldn't be. I think I have a broader definition of software freedom than you do. In this hypothetical scenario, GrapheneOS itself may technically be "free software" in the sense that the source code is open, but it would still be cooperating in a intentional scheme to prevent you, the user, from modifying it to work the way you want. Same deal if they started selling locked hardware with their signing key hard coded so you can't install a fork. You would legally have the ability to fork the software, but technical measures would be preventing you from running it. Granted, they're not doing that, but it's one short step away. That's why I say it's borderline anti-freedom, not that it actually is. I don't think it makes a difference whether the means employed to make a piece of software non-free are legal (copyright law) or technical (DRM, remote attestation, hardware locks). It's still restricting your freedom.
- palata 1mo ago
  I really want to insist on this: when someone develops software, you don't get to choose what they develop. That's just life. If they make their software open source, you get to fork it (sometimes contribute to it) and this is already very generous. But that's all. I say that as an open source author and maintainer, and my experience is that the vast majority of developers do NOT understand that. I have been criticised, insulted, sometimes bullied by people who wanted me to implement whatever they wanted ON TOP of providing my work for free. You can have your own definition of "free software" that means "the developers have to agree with my personal taste", and say that "Linux is borderline not free software because I want them to officially support Zig and they don't", but it doesn't bring much. What makes Linux free software is that you can fork it. I guess I don't understand the need to have a definition that only serves for complaining about a free project not implementing a feature you want. I get it, you wish GrapheneOS gave you root access. But it is not the choice of the people who do the work and make it available for free. But because it is free software, you can fork it and modify it yourself, and this is great.
  - Ajedi32 1mo ago
    For what it's worth this isn't just my "personal taste". I think Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation, at least, would agree with my definition[1]: > Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of the original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours—a practice known as “tivoization” or “lockdown,” or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as “secure boot”—freedom 1 becomes an empty pretense rather than a practical reality. These binaries are not free software even if the source code they are compiled from is free. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#make-changes:~:text=If%20the%20program%20is%20delivered%20in%20a%20product%20designed%20to%20run%20someone%20else%27s%20modified%20versions%20but%20refuse%20to%20run%20yours https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#make-changes:~:t... I didn't say anything about what GrapheneOS devs must do. They don't have to do anything. I just think that some of what they are doing comes close to impinging on software freedom in the same way proprietary software does regularly (though again, Graphene doesn't quite cross that line, in my opinion).

by palata 1mo ago

Ajedi32 1mo ago

> Well GrapheneOS would still be free software?!?!? It's the software from those companies that wouldn't be. I think I have a broader definition of software freedom than you do. In this hypothetical scenario, GrapheneOS itself may technically be "free software" in the sense that the source code is open, but it would still be cooperating in a intentional scheme to prevent you, the user, from modifying it to work the way you want. Same deal if they started selling locked hardware with their signing key hard coded so you can't install a fork. You would legally have the ability to fork the software, but technical measures would be preventing you from running it. Granted, they're not doing that, but it's one short step away. That's why I say it's borderline anti-freedom, not that it actually is. I don't think it makes a difference whether the means employed to make a piece of software non-free are legal (copyright law) or technical (DRM, remote attestation, hardware locks). It's still restricting your freedom.

palata 1mo ago
I really want to insist on this: when someone develops software, you don't get to choose what they develop. That's just life. If they make their software open source, you get to fork it (sometimes contribute to it) and this is already very generous. But that's all. I say that as an open source author and maintainer, and my experience is that the vast majority of developers do NOT understand that. I have been criticised, insulted, sometimes bullied by people who wanted me to implement whatever they wanted ON TOP of providing my work for free. You can have your own definition of "free software" that means "the developers have to agree with my personal taste", and say that "Linux is borderline not free software because I want them to officially support Zig and they don't", but it doesn't bring much. What makes Linux free software is that you can fork it. I guess I don't understand the need to have a definition that only serves for complaining about a free project not implementing a feature you want. I get it, you wish GrapheneOS gave you root access. But it is not the choice of the people who do the work and make it available for free. But because it is free software, you can fork it and modify it yourself, and this is great.
- Ajedi32 1mo ago
  For what it's worth this isn't just my "personal taste". I think Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation, at least, would agree with my definition[1]: > Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of the original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours—a practice known as “tivoization” or “lockdown,” or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as “secure boot”—freedom 1 becomes an empty pretense rather than a practical reality. These binaries are not free software even if the source code they are compiled from is free. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#make-changes:~:text=If%20the%20program%20is%20delivered%20in%20a%20product%20designed%20to%20run%20someone%20else%27s%20modified%20versions%20but%20refuse%20to%20run%20yours https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#make-changes:~:t... I didn't say anything about what GrapheneOS devs must do. They don't have to do anything. I just think that some of what they are doing comes close to impinging on software freedom in the same way proprietary software does regularly (though again, Graphene doesn't quite cross that line, in my opinion).