Quoting Sunil Mohan Adapa (2015-01-14 06:25:17) > On Wednesday 14 January 2015 03:42 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> Quoting Sunil Mohan Adapa (2015-01-13 21:05:38) >>> On Wednesday 14 January 2015 01:08 AM, Blibbet wrote: >>>> To me it is unsuitable for a FreedomBox due to firmware, which is >>>> probably UEFI-based if hardware comes from Intel. >>> >>> Indeed, proprietary firmware is a deal breaker. >> >> You mean UEFI specifically, or that *any* use of proprietary firmware >> is a deal breaker? > > I meant any proprietary firmware including WiFi firmware needed for > most single board computers with WiFi capability (by relying USB WiFi > devices). > >> Makes sense to me to steer free of proprietary code whereever >> possible, and we have enough options not requiring proprietary >> firmware injected at boot time, but I think it is too early to set >> the bar so high as to require no proprietary firmware exist soldered >> onto the board. > > If the proprietary firmware is not executed (or can be disabled), say > for an optional hardware component, then I guess we can live with it. > > I do agree that it might be too early though. We can confirm a few > free working options and then look at this direction. > >> >> If you mean only UEFI, then why avoid that specifically? Yes, I know >> that Free firmware like Coreboot is better when offered (which is not >> the case currently), but how is e.g. proprietary BIOS better? >> >> >>> We should consider promising FreedomBox users images and devices >>> with only free software and firmware. Especially since we do seem >>> to have some viable hardware options. In the last meeting everyone >>> seem to agree that we should remove non-free repositories from >>> FreedomBox images wherever possible. This would be a step further. >> >> What do you mean by "whereever possible" in above? Is non-free >> Debian repositories less of a deal breaker than UEFI or other >> pre-loaded proprietary firmware? If so, why? > > We are currently using non-free repositories for all FreedomBox > images, even VirtualBox images. We only had a brief discussion but > from what I understand the agreement was to remove non-free > repositories from images where it is not needed, such as from > VirtualBox and BeagleBone images. There was no discussion on what to > do about hardware that requires non-free software. > > In my opinion, pre-loaded proprietary firmware is as bad as non-free > Debian repositories particularly if that firmware is replaceable. > >> **** >> >> 60 boards now for sale arguably match or surpass the DreamPlug. >> Makes sense to me to raise the bar higher, but not arbitrarily. >> >> We could add a requirement that the board must not use UEFI (if that >> is sensible - see my question above). That would still leave is with >> 55 options. > > I believe we should consider generalizing this for any non-free > firmware. The idea is that all software and firmware on FreedomBox > shall be free. If we do this (and pull off a nicely working > FreedomBox), many of our users will appreciate the fully freely > aspect. > It will become a strong point for FreedomBox adoption.
I agree with that - further down the road. Seems you agree with me that it is not realistic to be strict about *now*. >> We could add a requirement that the board must be Open Hardware. >> That would leave us with 12 options from 3 vendors. > > I don't think we should do this. At least, not yet. We should > certainly prioritize Open Hardware though. So essentially, in your opinion, we should not raise the bar now? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
_______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
