[medo-bear]

if its not automatic or hidden then it is ok, as long as you have that control. to be clear i think GNU has every right to forbid non-free software just as anyone has the right to not use GNU software if they don't want to. what should be known about are consequences and responsibilities for either (any) decision. if GNU says we dont want to support this security update it needs to clearly state the risk their users face. if it does that then its ok as far as i am concerned

[marcan_42]

They do not state anything like that; that's the entire problem with that linux-libre patch. It is removing a message that informs user that their computer is at risk without an update, because they don't want people to know, because if they did most people would choose to install the proprietary update to the proprietary microcode they are already running, and that would expose the existence of that microcode, and the FSF's utopia only exists in the minds of people who aren't aware of all the proprietary firmware they're running anyway.

It's all a big lie. There's proprietary firmware everywhere. The FSF just doesn't want users to know about it, so they can live happily in their blissful ignorance believing they are freer than everyone else.