RYF can, and should, be improved

RYF can, and should, be improved

[Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1967 bytes --]


Hello everyone.

I'm writing to libreplanet-discuss today, to discuss a topic that I
believe has not been discussed adequately, in recent years. I'll get
straight to it:

Some of you may know me as the founder and lead developer of Libreboot,
a project which provides free boot firmware, replacing the proprietary
BIOS/UEFI firmware on specific hardware. It is used heavily by the FSF;
they even run it on the servers which host fsf.org and gnu.org!

Libreboot is based on coreboot. The coreboot project distributes binary
blobs, which are required on most machines that it supports. Libreboot
removes those blobs, resulting in only a handful of machines being
supported, and efforts are made to support more machines in such a
state.

Until recently, Libreboot did not actually have a formal policy,
defining specific standards or objectives. It simply defaulted to the
FSF's own message.

I have now written a formal policy for the Libreboot project:

https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html

I have also written one for my parallel fork that I maintain, based on
Libreboot:

https://osboot.org/news/policy.html

Both articles talk about binary blobs from coreboot; the libreboot one
talks about blob deletion, and osboot talks about blob *reduction*. The
purpose of both projects, is to provide as much software freedom as
possible to users, within those policies. The ultimate goal: free
software everyone, available to everyone, without the injustice that is
proprietary software. The projects differ in their approach, but have
that some underlying goal.

I call for discussion of the topics presented in these articles. The
articles also discuss flaws with the FSF's "Respects Your Freedom"
program, and discusses ways to improve upon it, so as to encourage and
to facilitate more freedoms for computer users in the future.

Discussion welcome. Please, tell me your thoughts!

-- 
Think for yourself. Live free!

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 184 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: RYF can, and should, be improved

[Jean Louis]

* Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss <libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> [2022-01-05 05:15]:
> I have now written a formal policy for the Libreboot project:
> 
> https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html
> 
> I have also written one for my parallel fork that I maintain, based on
> Libreboot:
> 
> https://osboot.org/news/policy.html

On this following chapter about problems with RYF criteria, I am in
agreement. On the other hand your OSBoot policy is hypocrisy to
Libreboot policies. You are sitting on two chairs.

> Problems with RYF criteria

> [link]

> You can read those guidelines by following these hyperlinks:

> * GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG)
> * FSF Respects Your Freedom (RYF) guidelines

> The FSF RYF guidelines state the following:

> “However, there is one exception for secondary embedded
> processors. The exception applies to software delivered inside
> auxiliary and low-level processors and FPGAs, within which software
> installation is not intended after the user obtains the product. This
> can include, for instance, microcode inside a processor, firmware
> built into an I/O device, or the gate pattern of an FPGA. The software
> in such secondary processors does not count as product software.”

> This is absolute pure nonsense, and should be rejected on ideological
> grounds. The rest of libreboot’s policy and overall ideology
> expressed, in this article, will be based largely on that
> rejection. The term product software is completely asinine; software
> is software, and software should always be free. Instead of making
> such exceptions, more hardware should be encouraged, with help given
> to provide as much freedom as possible, while providing education to
> users about any pitfalls they may encounter, and encourage freedom at
> all levels. When an organisation like the FSF makes such bold
> exceptions as above, it sends the wrong message, by telling people
> essentially to sweep these other problems under the rug, just because
> they involve software that happens to run on a “secondary
> processor”. If the software is possible to update by the user, then it
> should be free, regardless of whether the manufacturer intended for it
> to be upgraded or not. Where it really isn’t possible to update such
> software, proprietary or not, advice should be given to that
> effect. Education is important, and the FSF’s criteria actively
> discourages such education; it creates a false hope that everything is
> great and wonderful, just because the software on one arbitrary level
> is all free.



-- 
Thanks,
Jean Louis

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns


_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: RYF can, and should, be improved

[Andrea Laisa]

Hi!

I want to ask: what is exactly the (intel) microcode? Is a program? Is 
it based in a turing-complete programming language or is a gate 
configuration?

Do you think a multi-level RYF certification may be a solution?

Where can we put the line where non-free software is acceptable or not?


( https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-rocket.html )

amreo


Il 05/01/22 03:12, Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss ha scritto:
> Hello everyone.
>
> I'm writing to libreplanet-discuss today, to discuss a topic that I
> believe has not been discussed adequately, in recent years. I'll get
> straight to it:
>
> Some of you may know me as the founder and lead developer of Libreboot,
> a project which provides free boot firmware, replacing the proprietary
> BIOS/UEFI firmware on specific hardware. It is used heavily by the FSF;
> they even run it on the servers which host fsf.org and gnu.org!
>
> Libreboot is based on coreboot. The coreboot project distributes binary
> blobs, which are required on most machines that it supports. Libreboot
> removes those blobs, resulting in only a handful of machines being
> supported, and efforts are made to support more machines in such a
> state.
>
> Until recently, Libreboot did not actually have a formal policy,
> defining specific standards or objectives. It simply defaulted to the
> FSF's own message.
>
> I have now written a formal policy for the Libreboot project:
>
> https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html
>
> I have also written one for my parallel fork that I maintain, based on
> Libreboot:
>
> https://osboot.org/news/policy.html
>
> Both articles talk about binary blobs from coreboot; the libreboot one
> talks about blob deletion, and osboot talks about blob *reduction*. The
> purpose of both projects, is to provide as much software freedom as
> possible to users, within those policies. The ultimate goal: free
> software everyone, available to everyone, without the injustice that is
> proprietary software. The projects differ in their approach, but have
> that some underlying goal.
>
> I call for discussion of the topics presented in these articles. The
> articles also discuss flaws with the FSF's "Respects Your Freedom"
> program, and discusses ways to improve upon it, so as to encourage and
> to facilitate more freedoms for computer users in the future.
>
> Discussion welcome. Please, tell me your thoughts!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: RYF can, and should, be improved

[Félicien Pillot]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1581 bytes --]

Wed, 5 Jan 2022 02:12:15 +0000,
Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss <libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> wrote:
> Discussion welcome. Please, tell me your thoughts!

Hi Leah, thank you for these deep explanations about things like
software/non-software blobs or microcode updates; it helps a lot to
understand the issues and your point of view.

IIUC, you say we should stop thinking in a binary way -- completely free
software compliant / completely non-{free software compliant} --
and rather as if there was a succession of steps towards total freedom,
without restricting our travel to any given "hardware-depth threshold".

I think I agree with you on this point, and I wonder what rms for
example would think about that.

However I'm not comfortable with this argument from
https://osboot.org/news/policy.html#configuration :
> It’s natural that the user may want to create a setup that is less
> free than the default one in osboot. This is perfectly acceptable;
> freedom is superior, and should be encouraged, but the user’s freedom
> to choose should also be respected, and accomodated.

Saying that, you go in the opposite way the FSDG does: it looks like
you're ok with distributing non-free software, just in case if the user
would like it better... I know we aren't talking about software, but
this distinction is not clear for everyone (including me). Anyway, the
word "accomodated" can be a source of debate.
-- 
Félicien Pillot
2C7C ACC0 FBDB ADBA E7BC  50D9 043C D143 6C87 9372
felicien@gnu.org - felicien.pillot@riseup.net

[-- Attachment #1.2: Signature digitale OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 184 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: RYF can, and should, be improved

[Jacob Hrbek]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2264 bytes --]

I argue to abolish the "hardware-depth threshold" so that RYF 
certification requires the manufacturer to release the source code for 
the hardware e.g. EDA files for KiCAD and Schematics under GPLv3 like 
Creality Ender 3, because it's super flustrating that proprietary 
developers that don't give a damn about free software and it's values 
get endorsed by FSF.

On 1/6/22 13:40, Félicien Pillot wrote:
> Wed, 5 Jan 2022 02:12:15 +0000,
> Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss <libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> wrote:
>> Discussion welcome. Please, tell me your thoughts!
> Hi Leah, thank you for these deep explanations about things like
> software/non-software blobs or microcode updates; it helps a lot to
> understand the issues and your point of view.
>
> IIUC, you say we should stop thinking in a binary way -- completely free
> software compliant / completely non-{free software compliant} --
> and rather as if there was a succession of steps towards total freedom,
> without restricting our travel to any given "hardware-depth threshold".
>
> I think I agree with you on this point, and I wonder what rms for
> example would think about that.
>
> However I'm not comfortable with this argument from
> https://osboot.org/news/policy.html#configuration :
>> It’s natural that the user may want to create a setup that is less
>> free than the default one in osboot. This is perfectly acceptable;
>> freedom is superior, and should be encouraged, but the user’s freedom
>> to choose should also be respected, and accomodated.
> Saying that, you go in the opposite way the FSDG does: it looks like
> you're ok with distributing non-free software, just in case if the user
> would like it better... I know we aren't talking about software, but
> this distinction is not clear for everyone (including me). Anyway, the
> word "accomodated" can be a source of debate.
> --
> Félicien Pillot
> 2C7C ACC0 FBDB ADBA E7BC  50D9 043C D143 6C87 9372
> felicien@gnu.org - felicien.pillot@riseup.net
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

-- 
-- Jacob Hrbek


[-- Attachment #1.1.2: publickey - kreyren@rixotstudio.cz - 1677db82.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 713 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 249 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 184 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: RYF can, and should, be improved

[Whistler]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1319 bytes --]

Well, maybe those users will just stick with proprietary firmware if not allowed to 'create a setup that is less free than the default one in osboot'.


sadly not everyone agrees with the ideas of free software (and probably the ideas of free software is currently still not accepted by the majority of the world).  Maybe it's better to attract more users than just let them stick with proprietary firmwares.


The point might be not to 'encourage' people to use more proprietary stuff, and not to consider proprietary stuff as a 'positive' thing.


>On 1/6/22 13:40, Félicien Pillot wrote:
>> However I'm not comfortable with this argument from
>> https://osboot.org/news/policy.html#configuration :
>>> It’s natural that the user may want to create a setup that is less
>>> free than the default one in osboot. This is perfectly acceptable;
>>> freedom is superior, and should be encouraged, but the user’s freedom
>>> to choose should also be respected, and accomodated.
>> Saying that, you go in the opposite way the FSDG does: it looks like
>> you're ok with distributing non-free software, just in case if the user
>> would like it better... I know we aren't talking about software, but
>> this distinction is not clear for everyone (including me). Anyway, the
>> word "accomodated" can be a source of debate.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 1352 bytes --]

   Well, maybe those users will just stick with proprietary firmware if
   not allowed to 'create a setup that is less free than the default one
   in osboot'.
   sadly not everyone agrees with the ideas of free software (and probably
   the ideas of free software is currently still not accepted by the
   majority of the world).  Maybe it's better to attract more users than
   just let them stick with proprietary firmwares.
   The point might be not to 'encourage' people to use more proprietary
   stuff, and not to consider proprietary stuff as a 'positive' thing.
>On 1/6/22 13:40, F锟斤拷licien Pillot wrote:
>> However I'm not comfortable with this argument from
>> https://osboot.org/news/policy.html#configuration :
>>> It锟斤拷s natural that the user may want to create a setup that is less
>>> free than the default one in osboot. This is perfectly acceptable;
>>> freedom is superior, and should be encouraged, but the user锟斤拷s freedom
>>> to choose should also be respected, and accomodated.
>> Saying that, you go in the opposite way the FSDG does: it looks like
>> you're ok with distributing non-free software, just in case if the user
>> would like it better... I know we aren't talking about software, but
>> this distinction is not clear for everyone (including me). Anyway, the
>> word "accomodated" can be a source of debate.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 184 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss