"Jelle Hermsen" jelle@fsfe.org wrote (quoting adjusted):
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:40:12 +0100, discussion-bounces@fsfeurope.org wrote:
- judith@movingyouth.eu judith@movingyouth.eu [2012-02-08 14:18:55
+0100]:
What about about giving to the winner a laptop or desktop with current freedom tools that one use in his day-today life - a freedom box, Free Software social networks, browser and OS?
This kind of hardware is a bit difficult for FSFE as a prize. Most of the hardware relies on non-free drivers, and we would have to find hardware that does not depend on that. I do not want to give something to a winner, which forces him to use non-free software.
You could give away Lemote Yeeloong as a prize, they are running 100% Free Software, including the bios.
Quoting http://www.lemote.com/en/products/Notebook/2010/0310/112.html:
| 1) The world's first fully free software. All system source | files(BIOS, kernel, drivers etc.) are free software, no close | firmware needed.
Given that the BIOS is the only firmware that is explicitly mentioned to be free software, I assume "no close firmware needed" actually means "no non-free firmware except the pre-installed one".
If that's the case, the system might satisfy the "no non-free drivers" requirement, but it wouldn't really be "running 100% Free Software".
Of course the other firmware could be covered by the "etc.", but considering the specifications listed on the same URL that seems rather unlikely to me.
Fabian
If it's good enough for RMS... :)
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:19:03 +0100, Fabian Keil wrote:
Given that the BIOS is the only firmware that is explicitly mentioned to be free software, I assume "no close firmware needed" actually means "no non-free firmware except the pre-installed one".
If that's the case, the system might satisfy the "no non-free drivers" requirement, but it wouldn't really be "running 100% Free Software".
Of course the other firmware could be covered by the "etc.", but considering the specifications listed on the same URL that seems rather unlikely to me.
Fabian
Fabian Keil freebsd-listen@fabiankeil.de writes:
Quoting http://www.lemote.com/en/products/Notebook/2010/0310/112.html:
| 1) The world's first fully free software. All system source | files(BIOS, kernel, drivers etc.) are free software, no close | firmware needed.
Given that the BIOS is the only firmware that is explicitly mentioned to be free software, I assume "no close firmware needed" actually means "no non-free firmware except the pre-installed one".
If that's the case, the system might satisfy the "no non-free drivers" requirement, but it wouldn't really be "running 100% Free Software".
There is a distinction, IMO a useful one, between what is expected to receive firmware uploaded from the operating system, versus chips that just run whatever was burned into them and are never altered after purchase.
Firmware that never changes after the recipient gets it may as well be hardware, since no-one has special access to alter the behaviour of it. It doesn't impinge on the recipient's software freedom.
Firmware loaded from the OS is software that the vendor controls, and the user deserves that same freedom.
The useful distinguishing question to keep in mind is: Does anyone have special access to alter the behaviour of this device after it changes hands? If so, the nominal owner of the device must have at least that much access also in order to have sufficient software freedom.
Ben Finney bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Fabian Keil freebsd-listen@fabiankeil.de writes:
Quoting http://www.lemote.com/en/products/Notebook/2010/0310/112.html:
| 1) The world's first fully free software. All system source | files(BIOS, kernel, drivers etc.) are free software, no close | firmware needed.
Given that the BIOS is the only firmware that is explicitly mentioned to be free software, I assume "no close firmware needed" actually means "no non-free firmware except the pre-installed one".
If that's the case, the system might satisfy the "no non-free drivers" requirement, but it wouldn't really be "running 100% Free Software".
There is a distinction, IMO a useful one, between what is expected to receive firmware uploaded from the operating system, versus chips that just run whatever was burned into them and are never altered after purchase.
Firmware that never changes after the recipient gets it may as well be hardware, since no-one has special access to alter the behaviour of it.
Usually the main reason that the device firmware in a laptop doesn't change after the recipient gets it, is that the vendor has no financial interest to provide updates free of charge.
For most devices there is no sufficient demand for paid firmware updates. Even if updates already exist the vendor may prefer to only sell them bundled with new laptops.
It doesn't impinge on the recipient's software freedom.
I disagree.
Firmware loaded from the OS is software that the vendor controls, and the user deserves that same freedom.
If the vendor isn't able to modify the firmware loaded from the operating system behind the user's back, the vendor loses control over the firmware when it is passed to the user, just as if the firmware was stored on the device from the beginning.
Proprietary firmware the operating system has to upload on the device for the device to become functional may be more visible than proprietary firmware already stored on the device, but that doesn't mean the latter doesn't exist.
The useful distinguishing question to keep in mind is: Does anyone have special access to alter the behaviour of this device after it changes hands? If so, the nominal owner of the device must have at least that much access also in order to have sufficient software freedom.
How does your definition of "sufficient software freedom" differ from the one used by the FSFE? http://fsfe.org/about/basics/freesoftware.en.html
Fabian