| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mmmna
. . . .
Joined: 21 Apr 2024
Posts: 7224
|
 Posted: Fri May 01, 2024 2:23 am Post subject: Interesting viewpoint, but... |
 |
|
I suspect the powers that be (kernel devs) have thoroughly addressed the issue raised in this article. http://libresoft.es/Members/herraiz/blog/linux-is-not-free-software
| Linux is not free software (and nobody cares) wrote: | Posted by Israel Herraiz at mar 18, 2024 09:15 | Permalink
Some days ago, I had the opportunity of attending a talk by Richard M. Stallman, about free software fundamentals (yes, the typical talk by Stallman). Among the many topics that he addressed, he talked about Linux not being free software. Stallman said that within the source code distributed by Linux you will find non-free software. At a first moment, I thought that Stallman was exaggerating, and I did not ask him about it. |
He goes on to relate how 28 source code files are not free, and Debian cares enough to remove those files.
All I see are files that point to intellectual property. Drivers and firmware, non critical stuff, when you consider that the majority of the installed Linx Kernels are not using these.
So, is it libre if they are included but you do not use them?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Lord.DragonFly.of.Dawn
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jul 2024
Posts: 607
Location: South Portland, Maine, USA, Earth, Sol System
|
| Posted: Fri May 01, 2024 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
This just begs the response.
"And your point is?"
Seriously. I can't tell if you are for or against the issue, and I'm not that clear on what exactly the issue is.
So a vendor wishes to protect intelectual property by releasing a binary only firmware. it's a stupid decision (imho) but it is theirs to make. so long as these Blobs are vetted for and verified by the vendor suppliers then I see no problem with using them, even if they are not open source.
and a mallicious blob would have to be inserted into the kernel tree by someone who knew what they were doing and was able to come up with a plausible reason for using it. you can bet devs are going to question the appearance of new blobs in the source. Modifying an existing one would be easier but would affect fewer machines, and if i read the model numbers right all the hardware that uses the blob firmware listed by your link are rather old.
so is this a real issue, or is it another case of making a mountain from a mole hill. (IT'S FREAKING INFLUENZA! get some antibiotics and you'll be fine! -grumble-)
_________________
ArchLinux x86_64 - Custom Built Desktop
ArchLinux x86_64 - Compaq CQ50 Laptop
ArchLinux i686 - Acer Aspire One Netbook
ArchLinux i686 - Dell Presario ze2000 (w/ shattered LCD)
PuppyLinux, CloneZilla, PartedMagic, DBAN - rescue thumbdrives
Windows 7 (x86_64 desktop alternate boot)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
mmmna
. . . .
Joined: 21 Apr 2024
Posts: 7224
|
| Posted: Sat May 02, 2024 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
umm, I wuz askin' for opinions?
Me, I could care less, because someone could remove all of the cited software and I'd not be affected in any way. Such a statement was in an earlier edit, I guess I should have left that in, huh!
The author of the article cites Hon. Richard M. Stallman saying (at a lecture which the author attended) that there is nonfree software in the Linux kernel. Like I said earlier in this post (sorry), I could care about the blobs. In fact, why include the blobs by default might be a more sensible discussion.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Lord.DragonFly.of.Dawn
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jul 2024
Posts: 607
Location: South Portland, Maine, USA, Earth, Sol System
|
| Posted: Sat May 02, 2024 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
ah.
so much clearer now. I think i made my opinion clear in my prev post.
hope it helps.
_________________
ArchLinux x86_64 - Custom Built Desktop
ArchLinux x86_64 - Compaq CQ50 Laptop
ArchLinux i686 - Acer Aspire One Netbook
ArchLinux i686 - Dell Presario ze2000 (w/ shattered LCD)
PuppyLinux, CloneZilla, PartedMagic, DBAN - rescue thumbdrives
Windows 7 (x86_64 desktop alternate boot)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
crouse
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Apr 2024
Posts: 11833
Location: Iowa
|
| Posted: Sat May 02, 2024 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stallman tries to keep everyone honest. I admire him for his convictions.
I don't always agree with him, but I admire his persistence. I love the fact that OpenBSD is committed to free software.
| Quote: | OpenBSD does exclusively include free software because of security reasons. If they can not read the code, they can not trust it. OpenBSD has rejected to include any kind of blob, because of the following reasons:
* Blobs can be 'de-supported' by vendors at any time.
* Blobs cannot be supported by developers.
* Blobs cannot be fixed by developers.
* Blobs cannot be improved.
* Blobs cannot be audited.
* Blobs are specific to an architecture, thus less portable.
* Blobs are quite often massively bloated.
If a blob were GPL, it would not have all those drawbacks. If all this blob debate were of a religious nature, OpenBSD would have not any concerns about getting them included in its system. |
The author has a VERY VALID point, and while I understand some of the Debian people wanting to include "blobs", I personally like original Debian motto.... "[Debian GNU/Linux] must be done by a organization to sucessfully advance and advocate free software without the pressure of profits or returns".
I agree with the author, OpenBSD's definition of free software is more accurate than say Debian's.
_________________
Veronica - Arch Linux 64-bit -- Kernel 2.6.33.4-1
Archie/Jughead - Arch Linux 32-bit -- Kernel 2.6.33.4-1
Betty/Reggie - Arch Linux (VBox) 32-bit -- Kernel 2.6.33.4-1
BumbleBee - OpenSolaris-SunOS 5.11
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
