6 ms·

Slightly OT: is it now possible to run a completely free OS on this new version? I've been getting contradictory info on this so far.

Narishma 12y ago
That's because completely free means different things to different people. Does it include the firmware/bios? Are you only concerned with what runs on the CPU?
- seba_dos1 12y ago
  Original Raspberry Pi needs user to provide non-free firmware blobs on SD card to even boot the CPU. That's pretty non-free in any meaning I can imagine. It seems like it's still the case with Raspberry Pi 2.
  - Narishma 12y ago
    The only difference between that an a PC is that the PC stores the firmware blob in a ROM chip while the Pi stores it on the SD card. Both require it to boot.
morganvachon 12y ago
Not yet. Closed source binary blobs are necessary for booting and for accelerated video. In fact, it's the GPU that bootstraps the rest of the board when you first power it up. There is work being done to write an open source driver for the GPU, with the blessing of the RPi Foundation and BSD-licensed code provided by Broadcom[1]. But I don't know if that will include the bootstrapping code, or how far along it is. Given that it is BSD licensed, it may not meet everyone's definition of "Free", but at least there is a good chance of having fully documented, source-available drivers in the future. [1] http://www.raspberrypi.org/a-birthday-present-from-broadcom/ http://www.raspberrypi.org/a-birthday-present-from-broadcom/
- pedrocr 12y ago
  > Given that it is BSD licensed, it may not meet everyone's definition of "Free", but at least there is a good chance of having fully documented, source-available drivers in the future. 3-clause BSD (what's common these days) meets pretty much everyone's definition of Free: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatible... (The following licenses qualify as free software licenses, and are compatible with the GNU GPL.)
  - poizan42 12y ago
    Not if you ask RMS: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
    - Turing_Machine 12y ago
      "the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses." There are open source licenses that RMS considers non-free, but the modern (3 clause) BSD license isn't one of them.

Narishma 12y ago

That's because completely free means different things to different people. Does it include the firmware/bios? Are you only concerned with what runs on the CPU?

seba_dos1 12y ago
Original Raspberry Pi needs user to provide non-free firmware blobs on SD card to even boot the CPU. That's pretty non-free in any meaning I can imagine. It seems like it's still the case with Raspberry Pi 2.
- Narishma 12y ago
  The only difference between that an a PC is that the PC stores the firmware blob in a ROM chip while the Pi stores it on the SD card. Both require it to boot.

morganvachon 12y ago

Not yet. Closed source binary blobs are necessary for booting and for accelerated video. In fact, it's the GPU that bootstraps the rest of the board when you first power it up. There is work being done to write an open source driver for the GPU, with the blessing of the RPi Foundation and BSD-licensed code provided by Broadcom[1]. But I don't know if that will include the bootstrapping code, or how far along it is. Given that it is BSD licensed, it may not meet everyone's definition of "Free", but at least there is a good chance of having fully documented, source-available drivers in the future. [1] http://www.raspberrypi.org/a-birthday-present-from-broadcom/ http://www.raspberrypi.org/a-birthday-present-from-broadcom/

pedrocr 12y ago
> Given that it is BSD licensed, it may not meet everyone's definition of "Free", but at least there is a good chance of having fully documented, source-available drivers in the future. 3-clause BSD (what's common these days) meets pretty much everyone's definition of Free: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatible... (The following licenses qualify as free software licenses, and are compatible with the GNU GPL.)
- poizan42 12y ago
  Not if you ask RMS: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
  - Turing_Machine 12y ago
    "the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses." There are open source licenses that RMS considers non-free, but the modern (3 clause) BSD license isn't one of them.