Nonfree software found in GNU Boot releases again, many distros affected.
GNU Boot - News [Savannah]
Savannah is a central point for development, distribution and maintenance of free software, both GNU and non-GNU.savannah.gnu.org
like this
Savannah is a central point for development, distribution and maintenance of free software, both GNU and non-GNU.savannah.gnu.org
like this
rtxn
in reply to petsoi • • •pastermil
in reply to rtxn • • •As a coreboot user, I'm laughing as well.
To me, this highlights the fallacy (and arguably hypocricy) of their thesis.
TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe
in reply to petsoi • • •Don't worry, the whole thing is that GNU boot contains proprietary firmware for testing coreboot. The only distros affected are GNU Boot and Canoe Boot. Upstream coreboot has that testing firmware there intentionally so it's silly to call it "affected".
FSF is doing great stuff for the world but I think FOSS is kinda held back by being led by nerds that are "a bit different". (edit: I mean that with respect. These nerds are surely nice people and great coders but imo not great philosophical leaders)
like this
troed and Noxious like this.
pastermil
in reply to TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe • • •shikitohno
in reply to pastermil • • •pastermil
Unknown parent • • •You're saying that, and yet even Leah Rowe is sick of that.
Also, try not to take my words out of context. We're talking specifically about the project mentioned in the article. Tell me, what value has canoeboot and GNU boot provides?
Coming from a (pragmatic) fan of GNU projects.
Nanook
in reply to petsoi • •like this
sunzu2 likes this.
Linux reshared this.
anamethatisnt
in reply to Nanook • • •In this case the binaries with the nonfree software seem be completely unnecessary, so why not keep it free?
mail.coreboot.org/hyperkitty/lā¦
Nonfree software in vboot, what to do about it? - coreboot - mail.coreboot.org
mail.coreboot.orglike this
Noxious likes this.
Nanook
in reply to anamethatisnt • •Linux reshared this.
anamethatisnt
in reply to Nanook • • •Not in this case, the tests they're running doesn't need the vendor blobs in those testing folders.
Generally I agree with Debians changes to include nonfree firmware in the default images and making the "completely free" images the non-default version. I do think maintaining and having completely free distro versions to be a good thing though.
issuetracker.google.com/issuesā¦
Google Issue Tracker
issuetracker.google.comNanook
in reply to anamethatisnt • •Linux reshared this.
anamethatisnt
in reply to Nanook • • •That question is kind a rabbit hole and not one I feel confident in going down.
Free as in freedom, not as in free beer.
The real world implications of non-free software is that other's can't run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.
I like having computing alternatives that are free from corporate control and believe that the hardliners like FSF helps us keep those alternatives alive. I realise that those alternatives are in many ways worse and that a lot of hardware today requires the vendor blobs to work. When/If corporations push their control even further I want those alternatives to be around.
And you really should pay for winrar.
Nanook
in reply to anamethatisnt • •Linux reshared this.
anamethatisnt
in reply to Nanook • • •I believe that both proprietary non-free systems and fully free systems can exist and that having licensing alternatives like GPL, LGPL and MIT gives the developer options for specifying how their software is to be used.
The movement towards using MIT or LGPL instead of the full GPL for libraries thus allowing the developers using the libraries the freedom to choose what license their software should use is one I can stand behind.
If someone builds a FLOSS turbotax competitor and don't want anyone to use their hard work and fork it into a commercial and proprietary product then I believe there should be a license for that.
If they rather earn money from it and copyrights their code instead that is also their prerogative.
The middle-ground where they create a free turbotax competitor with a license that allows others to fork it into a proprietary software should also be possible - although I personally don't see the allure.
Ledivin
in reply to Nanook • • •Nanook
in reply to Ledivin • •Linux reshared this.
Markaos
in reply to Nanook • • •While I agree with your view (at least when it comes to firmware, especially given that hardware that doesn't require a firmware upload on boot generally just has the very same proprietary firmware on a built-in memory, so the only difference is that you don't get to even touch the software running on it), the point of this project is to remove non-libre components from coreboot/libreboot.
It doesn't differentiate itself from upstream in any other way, so if it fails to do the one thing it was made to do, then that's in fact a newsworthy fact.
rottingleaf
in reply to Nanook • • •It's aesthetically nice. Just when you don't make compromises, the practical cases will be few.
That's true even for using OpenBSD as a daily driver. No Stallman there (and they don't like him), but some principles have to be followed. Thus no Wine and no Linux emulation.
Would like to try using Guix for a long time some day, but it would be an interruption.
anamethatisnt
Unknown parent • • •They were put there for some testing and from their mailing list it sounds like it will be removed as it's unnecessary.
mail.coreboot.org/hyperkitty/lā¦
edit: "there is a general advisory committee made up of any individuals who wish to help out and discuss their thoughts with the leadership board. This is done at bi-weekly meetings, which all members of the project are invited to attend and contribute."
coreboot.org/leadership.html
coreboot leadership
coreboot.orgRead Bio
in reply to petsoi • • •PushButton
Unknown parent • • •When Stallman was saying that smartphones would become a spying device, people were calling him crazy.
I am still thinking he's a bit on the crazy spectrum, but that some food for thought...
Nanook
Unknown parent • •Linux reshared this.
Eugene V. Debs' Ghost
in reply to PushButton • • •Stallman is often batshit insane, but when it comes to tech he knows what he's saying.
I would trust a doctor when he says about something about my stomach, I wouldn't trust them about astrophysics.
I would trust Stallman about how computers can be misused and mistreated, same as Cory Doctorow. I wouldn't trust both about a small part of history, unless it was obvious or very well cited.
anamethatisnt
Unknown parent • • •Ledivin
in reply to PushButton • • •Voltage
in reply to petsoi • • •