GNU Boot 0.1 RC1 Released For This Coreboot/Libreboot Fork

[ll1025]

....also Libre is a GNU marketing term, stolen by this person to trick people into believing they get GNU Software, many here fall for that read it often that they believed it was a freedom as defined by the GNU Project project.

Calling shenanigans. No one is confused about whether LibreOffice is GNU (it isn't). No one owns or has trademarked the term.

Libre simply denotes software that is free (as in speech).

[blackiwid]

Calling shenanigans. No one is confused about whether LibreOffice is GNU (it isn't). No one owns or has trademarked the term.

Libre simply denotes software that is free (as in speech).

Well the point is not if it's official GNU Project but if it uses the same definition as GNU / GPL about freedom, and libreoffice has no different view on freedom or different license. Sure it's Apache Lisense and other "Opensource lisence", but Opensource is just another wording for free software for the most part.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2

libreboot claims to be GPL but I don't understand how you can packages some free /open software with proprietary software and license it all as GPL that seems to me something that would not hold a court case, but maybe I misunderstand GPL and you can just add some % free software to your proprietary software and license it all as GPLv3 and never give out the source of your proprietary software. I would be very surprised. Just downloaded the main release file and there is a folder "blob". So they might even do something illegal. It's very strange to me.

I think they think they address this problem by offer a alternative version without blobs but obviously that is not enough. But the existence of this other version implies that they see the problem if the GPL would just allow that there would not be any reason for a alternative defect version that is mostly if not completely unusable without the blobs.

I mean there is some microcode or something that GNU considers like hardware or something, but I think this goes further than that, I am no lawyer but GPL 3 should be even more restrictive than v2 that is used by the kernel, and they excluded some blobs in a separate package / file (Linux-firmware).