GNU's Linux-Libre 3.15 Kernel Released

[stevenc]

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/imper...ppression.html

That article talks about features not yet implemented and suggests helping to contribute a missing feature.

Taking *away* firmware-loading capability is an antifeature, work was done to deliberately make it harder for somone to do something freely (requiring that someone figure out how to undo the change and recompile themselves). Running a libre kernel sounds like more of a status symbol for those who are able to manage with it.

Giving someone a GNU/Linux sampler with this crippled kernel sounds like it would be really poor in persuading users of the 100% non-free OS to start migrating over to F/OSS.

[stevenc]

2. Do you know what is in these blobs? How many backdoors by NSA, or chinese, or disgruntled employee of the manufacturer, or anyone else is there? Or how buggy are they and if they'll mess up your system at the worst possible moment.

How is a blob running on graphics card hardware going to phone home?

OTOH a binary driver runs *in* the kernel on the host system's CPU. I'd happily accept a free driver using non-free microcode as being an improvement. I'm sure the schematics of the GPU itself are not open-sourced and see no reason why the manufacturer has to do so.

[kiputnik]

Sorry, also no. I prefer BSD/MIT style licenses, they give people true freedom, not forced freedom.

There is no such thing as "true freedom". The difference between GPL and BSD/MIT is that BSD/MIT emphasizes the programmer/developer's freedom while GPL emphasizes the user's freedom. You can't say that one is "truer" than the other; BSD-like limits users' freedom, that is, the source code might not be available at all or the manufacturer might be just a huge dick and give away the source code without any means to put modified binaries back on the system; GPL-like limits the developer's freedom because they have to give the source code to the users and let them upload their own binaries.

From the perspective of a user that is highly annoyed by a certain feature/bug in his shiny new device that he would really like to fix but can't because the device is totally locked down even though it runs free software. The GPL way sure would feel like "true freedom" to that user, the freedom he doesn't have.

Don't get me wrong, it definitely would be better if all firmware would be open source, but putting a closed source software into a ROM and claiming that it is not software anymore so that you can use it is pure non-sense.

You don't seem to know anything about hardware design. Not that anyone would put ROM in their designs in this day and age (it just doesn't make any sense cost-wise, and RMS and co. know that), but assuming they would as they did a few decades ago, the thing would not be software, contrary to what you're trying to claim.

First and foremost, a real ROM chip is read-only not because it's somehow artificially locked down, but because it's either a plain old electrical circuit no different than what's inside your CPU, or it's programmed by destroying parts of the chip so that you'll get the pattern of zeros and ones you want. So no, stuff in ROM is not software. If it would, well, you could claim that your CPU is software. And let me also remind you that every CPU today is actually synthesized from software; somewhere out there exists the source code for your CPU, just as there exists the source code to Firefox! Would you also claim that calling your CPU hardware is nonsense?

Secondly, as far as I know, RMS never encouraged anyone to proactively put software in ROM! But of course, biased anti-RMS people like you will grab at any staw and twist it as much as they can just to discredit RMS and his "freetards".

[Vim_User]

There is no such thing as "true freedom". The difference between GPL and BSD/MIT is that BSD/MIT emphasizes the programmer/developer's freedom while GPL emphasizes the user's freedom. You can't say that one is "truer" than the other; BSD-like limits users' freedom, that is, the source code might not be available at all or the manufacturer might be just a huge dick and give away the source code without any means to put modified binaries back on the system; GPL-like limits the developer's freedom because they have to give the source code to the users and let them upload their own binaries.

From the perspective of a user that is highly annoyed by a certain feature/bug in his shiny new device that he would really like to fix but can't because the device is totally locked down even though it runs free software. The GPL way sure would feel like "true freedom" to that user, the freedom he doesn't have.


You don't seem to know anything about hardware design. Not that anyone would put ROM in their designs in this day and age (it just doesn't make any sense cost-wise, and RMS and co. know that), but assuming they would as they did a few decades ago, the thing would not be software, contrary to what you're trying to claim.

First and foremost, a real ROM chip is read-only not because it's somehow artificially locked down, but because it's either a plain old electrical circuit no different than what's inside your CPU, or it's programmed by destroying parts of the chip so that you'll get the pattern of zeros and ones you want. So no, stuff in ROM is not software. If it would, well, you could claim that your CPU is software. And let me also remind you that every CPU today is actually synthesized from software; somewhere out there exists the source code for your CPU, just as there exists the source code to Firefox! Would you also claim that calling your CPU hardware is nonsense?

Secondly, as far as I know, RMS never encouraged anyone to proactively put software in ROM! But of course, biased anti-RMS people like you will grab at any staw and twist it as much as they can just to discredit RMS and his "freetards".

It doesn't matter at all if you use ROM, EPROM EEPROM or Flash (without the possibility to flash by the user), it doesn't matter if it is a harddisk that is not accessible by the user (probably due to encryption/signing), software still remains software. Just because software is stored on an inalterable medium it does not suddenly become hardware, it is just software stored on an inalterable medium.
By the way, ad hominem does not make your argument more valuable.

[blackiwid]

Sorry, also no. I prefer BSD/MIT style licenses, they give people true freedom, not forced freedom.

That says it all, u just search a cornercase to bring people to hate the idea of freedom like the gpl defines it.

Therefor u search the one case that most people would agree to. To proove that gpl is shit in every case.

Its like people that make a scenario that can in reality happen where somebody dies if you dont torture the prisoner. But what u want then in reality is that torture is allowed in general.

if you think people should not use gpl because it makes them more unfree in your cracy mind, proove that the 99% software are wrong not try it on the 1% corner case.

The problem with bsd/mit is that we live in a world in there proprietary software and antifeatures and emprisioning users is allowed because of that, rms writes this "virus" called GPL to at least give authors the possibility to make that happen for their work.

Of course in a perfect world were ideas cant be patented and software cant be sold without the source code, bsd lisense would be just enough.

Again u will see that not like me, but dont try to pick such a cornercase. I am shure u used in your life a "illegal" copy at one point of a proprietary software, so does that proof that proprietary software rights are wrong? No, they are wrong but thats no proof of it.