LinuxQuestions.org - LXer: Report: What Will It Take To Have A Truly Free Kernel?

- Syndicated Linux News (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/syndicated-linux-news-67/)

- - LXer: Report: What Will It Take To Have A Truly Free Kernel? (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/syndicated-linux-news-67/lxer-report-what-will-it-take-to-have-a-truly-free-kernel-688832/)

LXer: Report: What Will It Take To Have A Truly Free Kernel?

Published at LXer:

Knowing when a GNU/Linux distribution is free used to be simple. If all its software had licenses approved by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) then a distribution was free. Otherwise, it wasn't. But it's not as black-and-white as it seems, since closed binary-only blobs have been allowed in the kernel for years now in violation of the GPL. Bruce Byfield examines the complexities of this issue.

Read More...

I'm sorry, but this is another tempest in a teapot. Really, what is the difference between a piece of hardware that has embedded proprietary firmware and one that loads proprietary firmware at boot time? Is the former more free than the latter? Hardware with proprietary embedded firmware is EXACTLY the situation that was going on for years, and nobody ever though it was a problem. Now however, firmware files are showing up and loaded at boot and all of a sudden there is a massive outbreak of twisted knickers.

The fact of the matter is that hardware vendors are frequently going to be reluctant to share their core firmware with the FOSS crowd and the only way to change this behavior is to not buy this hardware. However, good luck finding alternatives. As much as it may piss off FOSS purists, sometimes pragmatism has to win out.

Quote:

A more logically consistent argument against a kernel that meets the new definition of freedom is that removing proprietary firmware would leave GNU/Linux considerably weaker, especially in support for wireless cards and webcams. Kernel developer David Woodhouse describes such solutions as "bizarre" and its supporters as "fanatics," adding that, in discussions in the Fedora Project, "There was, understandably, a lot of resistance to the idea of just shipping a partially-disabled kernel."

I agree, I mean sure wouldn't it be nice to have FLOSS firmware for devices, yes, but in many cases this is not possible, because they will not allow it. For one, wireless cards cannot have open-source firmware because it would not be legal, it would fail to comply with the FCC. You should not be able to modify the device so it will cause harmful interference, if you were able to modify the firmware, you would be able to make it do this and worse. I never heard of webcams with external firmware. I would personally like DVD-RW drives with open-source firmware, that way I could change the region code myself instead of having to get a hacked version. Obviously they won't allow that either.

What I mostly expect from software is that it not be malicious, and the best way to know this is to have it be open-source, that way people have a real chance of finding it if it's there. With firmware, I suppose I do consider the original firmware on my DVD-RW drive malicious because it wouldn't let me rip DVDs at more that 1x, but other than that not much. Software, on the other hand, can be malicious, it can send information to who knows where, and it can make ads popup and limit what you watch (DRM).