Don’t worry, the whole thing is that GNU boot contains proprietary firmware for testing coreboot. The only distros affected are GNU Boot and Canoe Boot. Upstream coreboot has that testing firmware there intentionally so it’s silly to call it “affected”.
FSF is doing great stuff for the world but I think FOSS is kinda held back by being led by nerds that are “a bit different”. (edit: I mean that with respect. These nerds are surely nice people and great coders but imo not great philosophical leaders)
They’re a bunch of idealists that are detached from reality. Kinda reminds me of myself back when I was still in college.
Yeah and thanks to us you get to enjoy free software, yet you insult us for how we think and try to get and keep open software open.
Up yours
You are right that the tone was a little insulting.
That said, who is the “us” that you are referring to?
A lot of Open Source software is written by people that would not see the use of non-free components for testing as a problem. A lot of Open Source software is written by people that believe in the superiority of collaborative software development but do not have strong opinions on user freedom. The may ever value developer freedom in ways that is incompatible with the most extreme or idealist views of user freedom.
Are you demanding recognition to “us” for all that software?
The post you are replying to was unnecessarily combative. Your is no better and is supported by no better moral high-ground.
You’re saying that, and yet even Leah Rowe is sick of that.
Also, try not to take my words out of context. We’re talking specifically about the project mentioned in the article. Tell me, what value has canoeboot and GNU boot provides?
Coming from a (pragmatic) fan of GNU projects.
Also, try not to take my words out of context.
Clarify the part where you said it’s like when you were back in college.
The hard part here is that while you get a chance to restate your point, readers may already expect this one to sound belittling and you’ll have to try harder so this one also doesn’t sound like you’re calling people naive.
Look, when you’re trying to get your computer working I agree. I don’t mind having to use nonfree stuff if I literally cannot boot otherwise. But if we don’t have strong ideological fighters pushing for things like totally free systems then we wouldn’t be where we are today and we would always have to use non free stuff. So it’s definitely important we have people who are more ideologically idealist.
When Stallman was saying that smartphones would become a spying device, people were calling him crazy.
I am still thinking he’s a bit on the crazy spectrum, but that some food for thought…
Crazy doesn’t necessarily mean wrong 🤷♂️ Stallman is undeniably crazy
Stallman is often batshit insane, but when it comes to tech he knows what he’s saying.
I would trust a doctor when he says about something about my stomach, I wouldn’t trust them about astrophysics.
I would trust Stallman about how computers can be misused and mistreated, same as Cory Doctorow. I wouldn’t trust both about a small part of history, unless it was obvious or very well cited.
They may be idealists that don’t reflect a use case I think is reasonable to expect of the average user, but I would also say that it’s very important to have them there, constantly agitating for more and better. They certainly don’t manage to land on achieving all their goals, but they also prevent a more compromising, “I just need to use my stuff now, not in 10 years when you figure out a FOSS implementation” stance from being used to slowly bring even more things further away from FOSS principles in the name of pragmatism.
Appreciated if someone can explain what is the problem and its context in simple terms 🙏
I understand the GNU “framework” is built on free, open source software. So I don’t understand how one can “discover” that there were pieces of non-free software there… They were put there by mistake?
They were put there for some testing and from their mailing list it sounds like it will be removed as it’s unnecessary.
Apologies that this has caused problems for you.
This is just some old test data used to confirm that the parser in the command line utility works, and I don’t think anyone thought about the redistribution legality implications of putting those images into the repo.
I agree that it’s not a good situation and we should try to fix it.There is no real reason for these binaries to be in those test fixtures — the point of the tests is just to verify parsing for vboot data structures, the actual contents of the file are not really relevant.
- Julius Werner, member of the Advisory Group
edit: “there is a general advisory committee made up of any individuals who wish to help out and discuss their thoughts with the leadership board. This is done at bi-weekly meetings, which all members of the project are invited to attend and contribute.”
https://coreboot.org/leadership.htmlCheers! Got a bit clearer now.
Leah Rowe probably hasn’t stopped laughing since this was published.
As a coreboot user, I’m laughing as well.
To me, this highlights the fallacy (and arguably hypocricy) of their thesis.
Many distros affected by the ability to boot
is this releated to grub?
Falls under the heading of ask me if I give a flying fuck. Sorry, I just can’t identify with Stallman’s rather awkward and impractical form of puritanism.
While I agree with your view (at least when it comes to firmware, especially given that hardware that doesn’t require a firmware upload on boot generally just has the very same proprietary firmware on a built-in memory, so the only difference is that you don’t get to even touch the software running on it), the point of this project is to remove non-libre components from coreboot/libreboot.
It doesn’t differentiate itself from upstream in any other way, so if it fails to do the one thing it was made to do, then that’s in fact a newsworthy fact.
In this case the binaries with the nonfree software seem be completely unnecessary, so why not keep it free?
@anamethatisnt It’s only unnecessary if you don’t happen to own hardware that requires the non-free drivers.
Not in this case, the tests they’re running doesn’t need the vendor blobs in those testing folders.
Generally I agree with Debians changes to include nonfree firmware in the default images and making the “completely free” images the non-default version. I do think maintaining and having completely free distro versions to be a good thing though.
The whole situation is really unnecessary because none of the things that we’re testing really requires those vendor blobs.
We’re just testing the basic vboot and CBFS structures in those images, the file contents are not really relevant as long as they match the signatures.
So I think the easiest option here is to just remove the offending CBFS files from those images / overwrite the offending FMAP sections with zeroes.@anamethatisnt What are the real world implications of “non-free” software? I’ve never paid a cent for it, should I?
That question is kind a rabbit hole and not one I feel confident in going down.
Free as in freedom, not as in free beer.
The real world implications of non-free software is that other’s can’t run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.I like having computing alternatives that are free from corporate control and believe that the hardliners like FSF helps us keep those alternatives alive. I realise that those alternatives are in many ways worse and that a lot of hardware today requires the vendor blobs to work. When/If corporations push their control even further I want those alternatives to be around.
And you really should pay for winrar. ;-)
@anamethatisnt Yea, so you think the authors are not entitled to specify how their software is used? This is where I have a major disconnect with Richard Stallman.
They are free to use whatever license they want, but I am similarly free to avoid using software under non-FOSS licenses.
I believe that both proprietary non-free systems and fully free systems can exist and that having licensing alternatives like GPL, LGPL and MIT gives the developer options for specifying how their software is to be used.
The movement towards using MIT or LGPL instead of the full GPL for libraries thus allowing the developers using the libraries the freedom to choose what license their software should use is one I can stand behind.
If someone builds a FLOSS turbotax competitor and don’t want anyone to use their hard work and fork it into a commercial and proprietary product then I believe there should be a license for that.
If they rather earn money from it and copyrights their code instead that is also their prerogative.
The middle-ground where they create a free turbotax competitor with a license that allows others to fork it into a proprietary software should also be possible - although I personally don’t see the allure.
The political downvoting in this thread is a turn off for me. However, I completely agree with your statement / question.
Personally I’ve upvoted the replies as they keep a relevant and interesting discussion going.
@LeFantome @anamethatisnt If people disagree with me and think authors shouldn’t be able to specify how their work is used, I’m okay with that. We can agree to disagree.
It’s aesthetically nice. Just when you don’t make compromises, the practical cases will be few.
That’s true even for using OpenBSD as a daily driver. No Stallman there (and they don’t like him), but some principles have to be followed. Thus no Wine and no Linux emulation.
Would like to try using Guix for a long time some day, but it would be an interruption.
