Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-09 Thread Gerie Langeveld
Op 09-01-17 om 10:05 schreef Stefan Sperling: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:39:41AM +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: >> On Sun, 8 Jan 2017, Stefan Sperling wrote: >> The above policy applies to the base system code. It does not apply to ports and packages of third party software, i.e.

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-09 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:39:41AM +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: > On Sun, 8 Jan 2017, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > >> The above policy applies to the base system code. > >> It does not apply to ports and packages of third party software, i.e. > >> anything > >> listed by pkg_info. > > > Perhaps the

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-08 Thread Donald Allen
This guy took Theo's advice to go elsewhere with this even before the advice was given. He's apparently appointed himself an anti-blob vigilante and has also landed on Alpine and Void Linux. I had an exchange with him on the Alpine forum and tried this: "Then I suggest that you think hard about

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-08 Thread lists
Fri, 06 Jan 2017 22:45:47 +0100 Martin Hanson > Hi, > > I know that we cannot trust the hardware vendors and that all the > hardware is running firmware on ROMS, except some which are provided > be the kernel. Hi Martin, This means you either remove parts you don't

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-08 Thread Martin Hanson
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017, Stefan Sperling wrote: >> The above policy applies to the base system code. >> It does not apply to ports and packages of third party software, i.e. >> anything >> listed by pkg_info. > Perhaps the whole only a misunderstanding of the original poster that > could have been

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-08 Thread Roderick
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017, Stefan Sperling wrote: The above policy applies to the base system code. It does not apply to ports and packages of third party software, i.e. anything listed by pkg_info. Perhaps the whole only a misunderstanding of the original poster that could have been clarified with

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-07 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 12:02:21AM +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: > On policy page it clearly says: "OpenBSD strives to provide code that can > be freely used, copied, modified, and distributed by anyone and for any > purpose." > > This is MISGUIDING! Where is this secret firmware code which was

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-07 Thread Martin Hanson
08.01.2017, 02:53, "Peter Rippe" : > I think it absolutely is a language issue: > >>  On policy page it clearly says: "OpenBSD strives to provide code that can > > be freely used, copied, modified, and distributed by anyone and for any > purpose." > > Operative word being

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-07 Thread Peter Rippe
Lol...wow, okclearly its not a language issue, its a 'you' issue... you seem to think that "making an effort", or "trying", or "trying against difficulties" (your quote) is somehow synonymous with "guarantee", "success"... And as Theo so plainly put it, >If you don't want such firmwares

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-07 Thread Stuart Longland
On 08/01/17 12:28, Martin Hanson wrote: >> Nothing is going to change. Go try tugging on emotions elsewhere. > Actually, Theo I'm quite sure you need to change *something*: Perhaps a small alteration to the subscribers on this list… namely removing greencopperm...@yandex.com from it. -- Stuart

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-07 Thread Martin Hanson
08.01.2017, 01:29, "Mike Burns" : > On 2017-01-08 00.02.21 +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: >>  The issue is a misguiding policy statement. > > It could be a language issue. I'm a native speaker and everything Theo, > et al., are saying matches perfectly with the policy

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-07 Thread Martin Hanson
ludovic coues said: > You are free to use OpenBSD code. > You are free to copy OpenBSD code. > You are free to modify OpenBSD code. > You are free to distribute you fork. > > So unless your dictionary is twisted, shipping non-free firmware isn't > an exception to these freedom. You're wrong.

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-07 Thread Peter Rippe
I think it absolutely is a language issue: > On policy page it clearly says: "OpenBSD strives to provide code that can be freely used, copied, modified, and distributed by anyone and for any purpose." Operative word being **strives** - might want to look it up. It does not say 'guaranteed',

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-07 Thread Theo de Raadt
> 08.01.2017, 01:29, "Mike Burns" : > > On 2017-01-08 00.02.21 +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: > >>  The issue is a misguiding policy statement. > > > > It could be a language issue. I'm a native speaker and everything Theo, > > et al., are saying matches perfectly with

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-07 Thread Stuart Longland
On 08/01/17 09:02, Martin Hanson wrote: > OpenBSD ALSO provides software that cannot freely be modified in any way and > it DOES THIS WITHOUT EVEN ASKING THE USER! 5 seconds with a hex-editor says otherwise. My Windows 95 desktop used to report "Starting Winblows 97.." on boot-up due to a

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-07 Thread Mike Burns
On 2017-01-08 00.02.21 +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: > The issue is a misguiding policy statement. It could be a language issue. I'm a native speaker and everything Theo, et al., are saying matches perfectly with the policy statement, to me. Perhaps you can suggest improved wording. Patches go to

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-07 Thread System Administrator
at the risk of feeding a troll... see below On 8 Jan 2017 at 0:02, Martin Hanson wrote: > ludovic coues said: > > > You are free to use OpenBSD code. > > You are free to copy OpenBSD code. > > You are free to modify OpenBSD code. > > You are free to distribute you fork. > > > > So unless your

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-07 Thread Kenneth Gober
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 10:16:39AM -0500, Kenneth Gober wrote: >> The difference is, closed source firmware runs on the device itself >> and if it's buggy, generally the most it will do is make the device >> appear to be

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-07 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 10:16:39AM -0500, Kenneth Gober wrote: > The difference is, closed source firmware runs on the device itself > and if it's buggy, generally the most it will do is make the device > appear to be non-functional or unreliable. If a PCI device has unrestricted DMA access, as

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-07 Thread Kenneth Gober
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Martin Hanson wrote: > Yes, it can be argued that since we cannot get any open hardware at all it doesn't matter whether the firmware is located on a ROM or if it's installed by the kernel, but if we use that logic we might as well just

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-07 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 12:22:55AM +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: > I have misunderstood the purpose and use of the term "free" of OpenBSD > then. > > "OpenBSD strives to provide code that can be freely used, copied, modified, > and distributed by anyone and for any purpose", apparently there exists

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-06 Thread Martin Hanson
06.01.2017, 23:26, "Theo de Raadt" : > If you don't want such firmwares loaded onto the hardware, then don't > buy the hardware that needs it. > > There is your choice. > > I see no value in asking a user the question. I have misunderstood the purpose and use of the term

Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-06 Thread Martin Hanson
Hi, I know that we cannot trust the hardware vendors and that all the hardware is running firmware on ROMS, except some which are provided be the kernel. However, I fail to understand the reason for this patch:

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-06 Thread Niels
This has been discussed repeatedly on the mailing lists. Drivers run in user oder kernel space and should interface with devices sanely (and safely). Whereas in the case of closed firmware, as you said yourself, it doesn’t really matter where it is loaded from. > On 06 Jan 2017, at 22:45, Martin

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-06 Thread Mihai Popescu
> Martin Troll Troll Troll!

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

2017-01-06 Thread Theo de Raadt
If you don't want such firmwares loaded onto the hardware, then don't buy the hardware that needs it. There is your choice. I see no value in asking a user the question. END OF CONVERSATION. > I know that we cannot trust the hardware vendors and that all the hardware is > running firmware on