> http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20100614#feature > > and am scanning the comments, but I thought it worth starting a > thread on it here. One of the early posters has encouraged DW to > solicit comments from the FSF (which I would be interested in hearing > myself), while others have criticized the author for including > inflammatory language in what otherwise seems to be an informative > technical article.
I've just sent this comment: You claim that firmware being non-free is not an issue since it is run by the peripherals and not by the main processor. That argument fails in two points: first, it is hard to say that computers have only one processor nowadays, as the GPU can even be more powerful than the main processor. Second, that main processor has a binary only non-free firmware too. The common consumer processors this days are fed with a blob during the BIOS stage. So, the firmware is just another program designed to be run by a processor, being it the CPU or any of the other processors in a computer. And if you don't have the four freedoms over that software you can't know what such software does, and you cannot modify it or improve it. What happens to a perfectly fine peripheral which just got its warranty expired and the vendor doesn't want to keep supporting it? If you have the code you can keep using your hardware forever. Don't forget that a printer with no modifiable drivers started all this free software thing 30 years ago. A practical example might be the firmware included in the ATI Radeon driver -which is listed as free software almost anywhere-. It is run by a command processor in the card -not by the actual GPU- and it is required for 3D and 2D support... it also manages the DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) of the card, from a deep level. It is designed to take away your freedom, to limit what you can do with your card. It is needless to say that ATI cards show no 3D support on fully free operating systems like gNewSense or Trisquel. The other main claim is that the difference between embedded firmware and user-loadable firmware is unimportant. If it is the same binary blob, why being unable to change it improves the user's freedom? If you need to load a binary blob yourself, then you need to get a copy of it first, so you need to get non-free software to make your hardware work. It sounds pretty bad to me. The worst thing is that in the GNU/Linux world a free software provider -your distro- will need to provide such non-free program to you. And if they don't, people like you will undermine both the user and the distributor effort towards freedom. By the way, the current FSF policy states that the kernel should not load those binaries anyway, so there is no need for the users to hunt. Besides, I see nothing wrong in saying to the users: your hardware vendor doesn't respect your freedom. Buy from one that does. Also, this policies are showing those vendors that they are doing wrong. To lower the prices they are embedding more and more software inside the hardware, it is cheaper than actually wiring the thing the proper way. Now it is the moment to say the vendors: if you want to do that, give me the code or I'll buy from someone else.
