[not2b]

Yes, they have a rationale, but it's a poor one. Followed to its logical conclusion, I can make any program free. All I have to do it put it in ROM. Then I can pretend it is part of the hardware. Software in ROM is not hardware, it's just software that can't be improved or fixed.

The other point they ignore that if some part is programmable but currently requires proprietary firmware, it's possible (and this has happened) that people reverse-engineer it and produce free software that runs on it. BUt if you bought the FSF-blessed version of that device you're then stuck with the proprietary version of that program forever, and worse, you can't get any updates for that program. You can't get a security fix, and you can't replace it with the free program.

[csande17]

> The other point they ignore that if some part is programmable but currently requires proprietary firmware, it's possible (and this has happened) that people reverse-engineer it and produce free software that runs on it.

If this is possible, then device makers should do it, ship the free-software firmware on the device, and then get it RYF-certified. No blobs needed, ROM or otherwise! Problem solved!

It seems like a feature, not a bug, that the RYF certification process makes it more painful and expensive to release devices that rely on proprietary software.

[comex]

> If this is possible, then device makers should do it, ship the free-software firmware on the device, and then get it RYF-certified. No blobs needed, ROM or otherwise! Problem solved!

The device maker could ship with programmable proprietary firmware and have the possibility of being RYF-certified in the future if someone writes free firmware. Or they could ship with proprietary firmware in ROM and be guaranteed RYF certification immediately. The rules encourage them to pick the second option, and it's no surprise that companies such as Purism have done so.

Yet that option is never better for user freedom, since making software un-upgradeable does not make it any more free. And occasionally it is worse, in the event free firmware becomes available later on.

[csande17]

It sure sucks that device makers just have to wait and hope someone writes free firmware. If only they had some way to cause the firmware to be written, perhaps involving things like "money" or "employees" or "contracts with vendors".

The alternatives to this policy are allowing all blobs, in which case the RYF certification isn't actually verifying anything, or not allowing any blobs, in which case RYF cannot certify any devices made after 2009 (something the author also takes issue with). Making it expensive and risky for device makers to rely on blobs is the only middle ground that makes sense.

[kaba0]

You seem to miss that these devices are often full of patented parts, so in most cases even if the manufacturer wanted to, they can’t provide sources. Also, modems are often legally mandated to have certain firmware (so that restricted frequencies are adhered to)

[seba_dos1]

> even if the manufacturer wanted to, they can’t provide sources

In many cases they don't even have them or may not be aware that there's an upgradable firmware in some of the components they're using at all.

[int_19h]

Why would they spend time and effort on this, when there's a far simpler way to get the certification with existing non-free blobs?

[yxhuvud]

No, the alternative is to not be a binary yes or no certification, but to construct a nonbinary scale to measure how free it is.