On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 19:47 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > 2022, ഏപ്രിൽ 20 1:52:45 PM IST, Ansgar <ans...@43-1.org>ൽ എഴുതി > > On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 12:55 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > > liberated.computer it is refurbished and some components like > > > wifi > > > cards replaced so it works with 100% free software. > > > > No, it doesn't. It just *hides* the fact that you use non-free > > software. If you are happy with that, fine, but please don't claim > > it > > uses 100% free software. > > So are our official images not 100% free? If so what are we even > proposing to change? > > This question was about a desire to ship libre version of the image > with a laptop that can work with that image. Someone asked if such a > laptop exist in reality and I pointed out to someone doing that > actually.
No, the question was about a free OS "along with a libre(!) laptop". If "libre" means "can use non-free firmware as much as it wants (as long as this is hidden from the user)", you can just leave out the "libre" part. And even for this 10-year-old computer, some non-free firmware is still present in user-accessible parts (Intel ME). So it's not much of a change if Debian's install would ship a second one. > > And everything from keyboard, mice, storage (SD cards, SSD, > > rotating > > disks, controllers), ... has firmware. I don't expect them to have > > done > > much about that. Of course some devices come with preinstalled > > firmware, so it's easy to ignore the firmware exists. However, that > > does not "free" you from the restrictions of proprietary software > > that > > comes from using non-free firmware in any way compared to having > > the OS > > supply the firmware data. > > There are many layers of issues regarding firmware. I did not oppose > creating a non free image. I was only asking to keep creating the > free image for those who want it. > > https://forums.puri.sm/t/does-respects-your-freedom-certification-allow-updating-of-proprietary-firmware/9484/6 > > This has a pretty in depth analysis. I tend to agree with the > criteria FSF set for RYF certification relating to firmware. Yes, that is the "Of course some devices come with preinstalled firmware, so it's easy to ignore the firmware exists" approach I mentioned. That looks just like lying to oneself to me, so I don't feel it useful to consider. Other people might be fine with it. Ansgar
