Wouter Verhelst <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Ted, > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 08:56:31AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 12:34:44PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> > I want us to *not pretend*. I do *not* think it is good enough to >> > pretend it is not there. I want us to declare that non-free firmware is >> > not free, regardless of whether it's stored in a ROM chip on a device or >> > on a general-purpose storage medium. And I want to state, personally, >> > that in my opinion, using non-free firmware that's installed inside a >> > ROM chip on a device is *not* a better situation than having it on the >> > general-purpose storage of the computer in which it's mounted -- because >> > the latter means you can, theoretically, replace that firmware with >> > actually free firmware. If the non-free firmware is installed in a ROM >> > chip, you can't. >> >> Without trying to ascribe a particular position to the "FSF" (which is >> hard because it's unclear that anything ever spoken by Stallman >> reflects the official position of the organization that he founded), > > While this is true, we *can* look at official FSF projects, such as the > "respect your freedom" project that advocates for the "firmware must be > on ROM or flash on the actual device" position. > > So even though it's difficult to make a distinction between what the FSF > believes and what RMS believes, in this particular case, I think it's > fair to say that the two align.
I really think you misunderstand the FSF RYF position here. It doesn't advocate for non-free firmware in ROM. RYF advocate for freedom respecting devices that doesn't lead the user towards nonfree software. I believe that is different from your claims here and in your blog. See https://ryf.fsf.org/about and the critera itself at https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
