[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change


On 9/8/22 08:00, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:

As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be one very
simple way to express the change we (some of us) want.

It's the change we need to do in order to be consistent, so "want" is a pretty strong word here.

It is a marked step back from our principles and will be perceived as such, and it will also be a disservice to our users if we don't at the same time start lobbying harder for free, user-controlled computing infrastructure, because ultimately the future of free software hinges on whether there can be another generation of tinkerers, or if they will be locked out and relegated to working for free to add value to proprietary offerings.

The firmware debate is part of that bigger picture, and especially in a time when one of the providers of said firmware is publicly musing (i.e. market researching) about whether it would be okay to lock out hardware features until a license is provided, this is dangerous territory.

The reason I'm in favor of changing the SC is not that I believe it to be a good thing, but that I think we need to stay relevant for running on actual hardware, and changing the SC now is the only way to do so given that the actual hardware is non-free.

This change alone will not be sufficient, because we're still being Embraced, Extended and Extinguished into becoming a gratis "app" in the Windows Store.


Attachment: OpenPGP_0xEBF67A846AABE354.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: