[Mageia-dev] free software purity question

Thu Jul 19 16:31:52 CEST 2012

On 07/19/2012 09:19 AM, Johnny A. Solbu wrote:
+> Because it is the same issiue. I treat firmwares the same as I treat 
+> any other software. if a device can't work without installing a 
+> package contaning non-free firmware, I'm not using it. In order to use 
+> it I might need to install a non-free software package (rpm, deb, 
+> tarball). How is that any different than a driver? Both have to be 
+> installed by the user. (yes, yes, the default might be to have them 
+> preinstalled in some distros, that is not the issiue.) 
+
+All of this (including the OP) is really a group of artificial 
+distinctions.  All CPUs contain microcode or some programming 
+equivalent, even going back to the days of gates wired in series. You 
+may get a Principles of Operation manual that tells you what the 
+instructions (are supposed to) do in detail, but that's not the same as 
+seeing the "source" (microcode or wiring) that makes it happen, and it 
+certainly doesn't allow you to change it at will.
+
+Free Software is about not removing your ability to examine and modify 
+things you can reasonably be expected to have the skills and equipment 
+to examine and modify.  Most of us don't have the ability to manufacture 
+our own disk controllers or interrupt controllers. Yet both of those 
+contain closed-source custom programming, and nobody seems to think 
+twice about using them in FS environments.
+
+Personally, I think that the reasonable lower limit on "free" 
+expectations is the ability to burn your own BIOS ROMs if you wish to.  
+As far as hardware devices that are built with custom programming, I 
+don't see any distinction between wired logic, immutable ROMs, or 
+flashable/loadable firmware.  Those are all just aspects of how the 
+manufacturer supports the device (assuming he does).  Loadable firmware 
+may make it simpler for the manufacturer to supply updates and easier 
+for you to get fixes, but it's no more closed than wired logic is.
+
+In economic terms, what you seem to be asking for is absolute 
+unbundling, where every manufacturer is limited to making one and only 
+one thing and relying on multiple competing outside suppliers for other 
+components with open standards in force at each juncture.
+
+That works best when "commons" are involved, e. g. infrastructure that 
+can only have one owner, just as the fiber optic cable in a town or the 
+POTS copper cable.  In those cases, whoever granted the monopoly 
+(usually local government) can classify the resource as a public utility 
+and require the owner to rent its capacity to anyone who has the price.  
+This is what happened years back in the U.S. with telephone service and 
+dial-up ISPs, where the phone companies were told they couldn't refuse 
+to carry data traffic for independent ISPs at competitive rates.
+
+Unfortunately, the farther down you drill with this, the greater the 
+negative impact on innovation.  If I design a graphic card and I'm not 
+allowed to bring it to market until I can convince one or more 
+independent software development companies to do the programming with an 
+open, documented interface, I may not be able to financially survive the 
+delay.  Theoretically, if the market wants me to document the interface 
+so that others can compete with me on the firmware, it will punish me if 
+I don't.  But in the meantime, I have the opportunity to make early 
+profits that will allow me to cover the overhead of doing that later on.
+
+In short, I think you'll find that entusiasm for the Free Software 
+concept in the marketplace will dwindle severely as you try to take it 
+further and further down to the level of electrons.  Most people will 
+weigh the inconvenience against the probability that they or anyone 
+acting on their behalf will ever exploit that freedom.
+
+