When it comes to non-free firmware I think there's two reasonable positions - treat it like non-free code running on a remote system (suboptimal, outside the scope of current free software priorities) or treat it like software running on the primary CPU (all code on the local system should be free software, no matter where it's running). I think the FSF's position is unreasonable: https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/70895.html
@mjg59 Isn't "unreasonable" their entire schtick?
I mean, unreasonable got some good things started, but by this point, we probably need a completely different brand of unreasonable.
@darkling @mjg59 Read the article. Their "unreasonable" perspective isn't unreasonable in the sense that it tries to enforce that everything is free or push a maximalist freedom argument.
It's "unreasonable" because, in practice, it actually advocates for *removing* freedoms from users by removing their ability to update (and possibly even find ways to free) their firmware, instead promoting the existence of non-free firmware that's just invisible.
It's just a completely backwards position that advocates for misleading users into believing their systems are "more free" while actually causing damage without increasing freedom in any measurable way. Freedom PR, basically. The FSF has completely lost it with RYF.
@marcan @darkling @mjg59 FSF's approach is the worst of both worlds. It genuinely baffles me that they keep doing it. Do they have *any* argument for carrying on with it other than the "ROM is hardware" BS?
It's not even like the practical consequences of this classification are unproven. Lots, if not most of hardware I've seen that proudly boasts RYF take inane steps to pretend firmware doesn't exist, in ways that don't limit their capacity for harm whatsoever...
Edited 53d ago
@marcan @darkling @mjg59 this is the disconnect that has made me completely lose interest. they've forgotten that the point is user freedom, including freedom of choice. they've turned it into a bizarre purity test where the only way forward is to deny more and more tangible freedom in exchange for more and more ludicrous notions of abstract freedom.
@asu @marcan @darkling @mjg59 As far as I can guess, it breaks down into two fundamental concerns:
1) We can't allow our flock to be tempted. Make them rip out anything that would run proprietary software.
2) We need a way to "grandfather" into compliance the devices we have already been using. If we say the proprietary firmware in the Embedded Controller (and countless other cores) in RMS' Thinkpad is "just part of the hardware" for <some reason> we can pretend it doesn't exist.
@developing_agent @asu @marcan @darkling the EC firmware that exists in flash and can be upgraded? Huh.