Re: Keep both images but stop pretending no-free is unofficial
On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 19:47 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> 2022, ഏപ്രിൽ 20 1:52:45 PM IST, Ansgar <ansgar@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
Reply to: