[crote]

The whole "no binary blob" argument has always felt very arbitrary to me.

Everyone seems fine with read-only firmware permanently burned into chips during production. It is part of the hardware, so it would be silly to treat it like software. Most people seem fine with firmware stored on in-device flash chips. It's basically the same story as before, only it might in some cases be able to update that firmware.

But then you get to devices which store their firmware in-memory and it's suddenly a problem - even if it's exactly the same software the device would otherwise be loading from a ROM area or flash chip. Why the sudden shift? And then there are even people who are fine with their CPU executing its burned-in microcode, but updating that very same microcode with a blob during bootup is suddenly a deadly sin? I just don't get it.

I get the appeal of a system which only runs open-source code and which is provably free of any kind of backdoors or restrictions, but that fight was already lost when Intel's 8086 and Motorola's 68k entered the market. I don't think there has ever been a truly "free" computer which wasn't a toy project, so why intentionally kneecap your daily compute experience?

[sidewndr46]

If someone sells me a device with some firmware on it, they presumably had acquired a transferable license for that software. They then transferred it to me on sale. When I bought a used pickup truck, I did not need Ford to sell me a new license for the engine control unit.

If I buy a piece of hardware that has absolutely zero software on it, then I have to go get a license from someone else to use hardware that I "own". Even though in the case of a WiFi card that piece of hardware is purpose built and has exactly one single function.

[jononor]

The proponents of open firmware and open hardware that I know consider built-in firmware as bad-but-slightly-better-than-updatable. Slight better because it is theoretically easier to validate, as one does not need to take into account firmware updates when doing so. But still something that is ideally avoided.

Yes, the struggle for libre hardware has generally been a losing one. But electronic devices are just getting more and more important, so it is just as important a mission as ever.

[pabs3]

We are not fine with any proprietary firmware or hardware, but we have to be realistic, use the hardware we have and open up as many layers as we can, one step at a time.

[ssl-3]

For me, the distinction is simple.

Binary blobs in software are incompatible with the GPL, and can't be included in the Linux kernel.

Binary blobs in firmware, meanwhile, can exist entirely on the hardware. There isn't any licensing issue because there is nothing to license.

(And, sure. That's an incomplete solution if truly libre hardware is the goal.

But we humans accept and deal with incompetent solutions all the time in every aspect of life, and I'm not willing to die on this particular hill.)

[ssl-3]

Autoderp: "incompetent" was supposed to be "incomplete"