Matthias Urlichs <matth...@urlichs.de> writes: > On 08.03.25 15:36, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> One difference is that you could chose to trust their hardware (CPUs) >> but don't trust their software (non-free firmware). > > True. But so, again, what's the material difference between "the > firmware is baked into the hardware and cannot be changed" vs. "the > firmware can be updated"? > > Answer: there isn't one. They're both software, except that the vendor > can choose to fix bugs on the latter.
I don't think that is the only answer. I believe there is a significant different between these two cases from, e.g., a consumer freedom perspective (accepting a software EULA compared to purchasing a physical component). As far as I can tell, you wouldn't agree. The arguments have been made many times already, so repeating them probably won't convince either of us. I think both viewpoints are reasonable positions, but they lead to different conclusions how to deal with non-free firmware: either reject it as being non-DFSG, or accept treating as an really-part-of-the-hardware-but-wasn't exception. > My personal opinion: You want open hardware? go and build some > yourself. That's the way how we got free/libre software, after all. I believe almost all free/libre software were created on closed hardware, and often using non-free operating systems. So I don't think open hardware is a requirement for free software. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
