On Sunday, January 24, 2021 7:19:58 AM EST Bjørn Mork wrote: > What we are left with is users who are offended by the mere existence of > non-free binaries on a Debian image, and who see this as significantly > worse than the non-free firmware in their NIC, SSD, EC, CPU etc. The reason why, say, wireless firmware is more serious from a software freedom standpoint (and I believe the FSF's stance) is: 1. Unlike with SSD firmware, there are wireless cards that use libre firmware and some are still manufactured and quite easy to attain. The goalpost for free software moves with what has been achieved. One used to have to accept using a proprietary BIOS, but not anymore; Coreboot/Libreboot have pushed that boundary, so now it's been realized as something attainable. When the first libre SSD comes out, then we can worry about SSD freedom, because then we'll be able to lend our support. 2. Firmware copied by Debian onto a device's RAM is very easy to change for the manufacturer with an update: they get the liquidity of software at their disposal. The user doesn't get to take advantage of this, so the manufacturer holds a good amount of control over the user, comparable to ordinary software. Changing the firmware on an EEPROM is far less practical for the user or manufacturer (they're on similar footing), and if it's not electronically erasable, it's merely an object that can't be practically changed of which you'd need to make a new one anyway. I hope this explains the viewpoints of those opposed to the proprietary firmware in installation images, and why they distinguish it from other notions of firmware.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.