67 points by TangerineDream 4 days ago | 58 comments
AndyMcConachie 4 days ago
prmoustache 3 days ago
tlhunter 4 days ago
Test data doesn't seem like a huge deal
rwmj 4 days ago
3np 3 days ago
anthk 3 days ago
Even engines from Scummvm had to be cut out because the supported games didn't had a way to recompile those from source (Broken Sword, Drascula)...
And I think it's fair. If Broken Sword or Drascula were implemented with libre bytecode, I would be totally ok on redistributing the game data as freeware. But it's not the case. You are not redistributing game data with the bass, queen1, and the rest of packages under Trisquel, Debian or Ubuntu, but executables for a virtual a machine plus the game data.
It's the same as running a freeware Minecraft libre and free Java VM (OpenJDK).
seba_dos1 3 days ago
anthk 3 days ago
krater23 4 days ago
p.s.: Do they have a so small overview about the own code that they need 3 versions to detect that there is non free code in the release?
viraptor 4 days ago
CodesInChaos 4 days ago
anthk 3 days ago
OFC libre firmware is the best, such as the ath9k supported wireless devices.
rlpb 3 days ago
You don't have to take the updated firmware, though?
prmoustache 3 days ago
mistrial9 3 days ago
kleiba 4 days ago
viraptor 4 days ago
kleiba 4 days ago
viraptor 4 days ago
kleiba 4 days ago
akerl_ 4 days ago
kleiba 3 days ago
dullcrisp 4 days ago
poincaredisk 4 days ago
I, for contrast, use free software almost exclusively, but I have no moral problems with using proprietary drivers.
anthk 3 days ago
kleiba 3 days ago
akerl_ 3 days ago
tourmalinetaco 4 days ago
argsnd 4 days ago
amiga386 4 days ago
Microcode in ROM is fixed. Nobody - neither you nor the vendor - can alter it. You are both equal.
Microcode as a binary blob loaded at runtime means the vendor has the source and tools and can create and alter and build and distribute the modifications and FUCK YOU you can't do any of those things legally. Just copy some opaque blob unmodified - that's non-free software in a nutshell.
Solution 1: vendor gives out the source and tools for creating the blob under a free license.
Solution 2: don't buy or use that hardware. Support vendors that support solution 1.
Solution 3: the vendor, having refused to offer their firmware under free software terms (which they totally could do and the whole idea of the free software movement is to get them to do it), agrees the compromise that they cannot alter the firmware either so puts it in ROM. They'd prefer not to, of course, but if they want another option, solution 1 is right there. Free the firmware and this problem goes away.
If you think other solutions are "pragmatic", just pragmatically use non-free Windows which is full of opaque binary blobs you don't have the source for and can't recreate, let alone alter or redistribute the changes. That counts as free software, right?
tourmalinetaco 3 days ago
mindslight 3 days ago
I'm pretty adamant about software freedom, but my own model involves computational domains and resulting security properties. CPU microcode is a pretty shitty thing, but it's in a similar camp to proprietary CPU designs so that's just where we are in 2024. Proprietary firmware in non-networked peripherals does not bother me at all. Updating firmware only bothers me to the extent that proprietary update processes require more work (including sandboxing to thwart any telemetry). Meanwhile proprietary BIOS, regardless of whether it gets updated, is a huge red flag based on how much access it has to the whole system plus the network.
Having said that, this topic is where the FSF's definition actually has more relevancy. It is neat to be able to say everything in this tarball/cdimage/etc is 100% libre licensed, orthogonal to the implications for how it affects users' freedom. So doing the work here is seemingly worthwhile even if it's not fully necessary to serve the FSF's main goal.
I just wish they'd stop focusing on this outmoded definition for things like the firmware blobs in Trisquel/Guix, which actually ends up harming user freedom/actualization by making for a poor experience that makes libre software look like some kind of religion based on purity rather than programmer self empowerment.
prmoustache 3 days ago
viraptor 4 days ago
Wanting a free firmware for all components is just not realistic in any way today or in the foreseeable future.
BodyCulture 4 days ago
m4rtink 4 days ago
RealStickman_ 4 days ago
m4rtink 3 days ago
Unlike the the existing platforms where we know almost for sure the few companies running them will keep the code and implementation details to themselves and its unlikely this will change in the future.
viraptor 3 days ago
mediumsmart 4 days ago
viraptor 4 days ago
Other systems may have bugs too, but they don't take extra time to make sure you can't patch those bugs without additional work and going against the system.
Propelloni 4 days ago
Debatable. Guix has adequate grounds to build their beliefs on and they accept other stances besides their own. Guix may think the others are wrong, but that's their privilege, just like you are privileged to think they are wrong. So they seem to be more principled than dogmatic.
User23 4 days ago
I happen to believe they’re essentially right, but we live in an imperfect world and I still want my microcode bugs patched so I do that.
Retric 4 days ago
Don’t operate heavy machinery while drunk is a lesson people and organizations learn over and over. Would you say it’s dogmatic?
Propelloni 3 days ago