4 ms·

With regards to the term free software, the definition is opaque to most people, however it's likely construed as such: * The freedom to run the program, for a

by ihsw 13y ago

With regards to the term free software, the definition is opaque to most people, however it's likely construed as such: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Furthermore, Mark Shuttleworth is doing an AMA on reddit right now and someone asked about binary blob drivers (rather than full-source drivers), and this was his response: > There may be blobs in the first generation device. The way to a blob-free future is to show demand from folks who care about that, not to be ideological about it. Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1j166z/hi_im_mark_shuttleworth_founder_of_ubuntu/cba1v6a http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1j166z/hi_im_mark_shut... Suffice to say that the Edge's OS will not be composed of only free software.

unknownian 13y ago
On Hacker News, most people know what Free Software is, but thank you for the AMA tidbit.
- publicfig 13y ago
  That doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning. Just because you think most people will know something doesn't mean that's true, and I feel as though it's incredibly relevant to bring it up along side this discussion.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Personally I had an idea of what it was, but it wasn't until yesterday that I was linked to gnu.org and read some of their pages. I'm sure most people on HN have an idea of what Free Software(TM) entails, but not actual quantifiable terms. Again, this is a personal opinion and I'm trying hard to avoid making inaccurate broad-sweeping and baseless generalizations.
DannyBee 13y ago
Ironically, android engineers who were ideological about it have spent a lot of time making open non-blob drivers for various pieces of phones over the years before various AOSP releases.
superuser2 13y ago
"The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish" is incompatible with the security and proper functioning of the cellular RF spectrum. Other people want to use the airwaves, too. In fact some people have come to rely on the availability of voice calls such that it would be a Very Bad Thing if an amateur's typo took out voice and data for several city blocks. Also the carriers will never in a million years authorize people to transmit as they wish on cellular networks. The radio firmware, at the very least, has to be closed source.
- unsignedint 13y ago
  Adding to this that there's a bit of regulatory implication of open sourced cellular RF stack as well. Essentially, whenever you connect to a cellular network, you are not a "licensee" of the "station" rather, mobile carriers are. (Basically you are the remote controlled station -- as mobile carrier is a control operator for your RF interface) So like you said, radio firmware and opensource doesn't mix...

by ihsw 13y ago

unknownian 13y ago

On Hacker News, most people know what Free Software is, but thank you for the AMA tidbit.

publicfig 13y ago
That doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning. Just because you think most people will know something doesn't mean that's true, and I feel as though it's incredibly relevant to bring it up along side this discussion.
ihsw 13y ago
Personally I had an idea of what it was, but it wasn't until yesterday that I was linked to gnu.org and read some of their pages. I'm sure most people on HN have an idea of what Free Software(TM) entails, but not actual quantifiable terms. Again, this is a personal opinion and I'm trying hard to avoid making inaccurate broad-sweeping and baseless generalizations.

DannyBee 13y ago

Ironically, android engineers who were ideological about it have spent a lot of time making open non-blob drivers for various pieces of phones over the years before various AOSP releases.

superuser2 13y ago

"The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish" is incompatible with the security and proper functioning of the cellular RF spectrum. Other people want to use the airwaves, too. In fact some people have come to rely on the availability of voice calls such that it would be a Very Bad Thing if an amateur's typo took out voice and data for several city blocks. Also the carriers will never in a million years authorize people to transmit as they wish on cellular networks. The radio firmware, at the very least, has to be closed source.

unsignedint 13y ago
Adding to this that there's a bit of regulatory implication of open sourced cellular RF stack as well. Essentially, whenever you connect to a cellular network, you are not a "licensee" of the "station" rather, mobile carriers are. (Basically you are the remote controlled station -- as mobile carrier is a control operator for your RF interface) So like you said, radio firmware and opensource doesn't mix...