On Vi, 23 iul 21, 07:17:31, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 10:20:00AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > On the other hand, if the device would accept only firmware signed by > > the manufacturer the code itself could be open sourced. > > > > Users would still depend on the manufacturers to actually release > > updates, but at least they would have a way to contribute improvements > > to the code. > > It would still fail any reasonable definition of "free software", though, > including Debian's DFSG. The user is not free to make any changes to > the software, not even for their own personal use.
They could still submit patches. > They're not even free > to rebuild the firmware and verify that it matches the official binary. > All they can do is look at the code and hope that the binary blob actually > matches it. Unless I'm missing something (which is very much possible, I'm way out of my depth here) rebuilding to verify it matches the official binary should still be possible. Care to elaborate on why you think this would be a problem? > So, even in this hypothetical universe, the firmware would still be in > the non-free section. Yes. Still better than what we have now though ;) Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
