Debian To Consider Changing How It Treats Closed-Source Firmware

[phoron]

I hope Debian doesn't change its policy. The only policy change I'd second is dropping non-free. But besides the answer to the question, I worry about the tendencious way the questions are compsed. They are very much written from an option 5 mindset. Each option should be written from the mindset of someone who might choose it. The current text just makes clear the person wrtiting it is not willing or able to understand any other options, So I don't know why he's asking.

[phoron]

So with a modern device which requires firmware, the vendor has basically 3 different options:

1. Put the firmware on ROM. This of course has the big downside that if the FW needs to be updated (say, a security issue or a bugfix) the device has to be thrown away (hooray, more e-waste), or then maybe the vendor can desolder the ROM chip of an RMA'd device and replace it with a ROM chip with the newer code.
2. Put the firmware on flash. This is nicer than the previous as the FW can easily be updated.
3. Don't store the FW permanently on the device, but instead have the device driver load it into device RAM as part of the device initialization. This is often the preferred way, as it can save on the BOM cost vs option 2.

4.- Publish your firmware source as free software. Problem solved.

[sinepgib]

There's some truly asinine way of thinking behind treating firmware as software. While technically it is, it's factually not. Why? It's not executed by your device CPU, it's executed by the device you're using.

Secondly, tons of modern devices already come with ROM built-in, so that makes the whole conversation even mooter. Even if you somehow reject external firmware you're already running some ROM.

Lastly, people who advocate for firmware-free releases or devices pretend they have the original schemes/blueprints for their devices and that devices do exactly as they are told. That hasn't been true for the absolute majority of electronic devices released over the past two decades. In fact nowadays truly open devices are such a rarity you have to Google for them hard and then they are a lot more expensive than their "closed" counter parts.

I think it's entirely reasonable to consider firmware as software. Call it an "internal driver" of sorts. Most devices do have a weak microprocessor inside that is effectively running this software. That said, one has to adapt to reality. If we can't (and apparently we can't, given the fact that we don't) write free versions, then we should strive to at least not turn those chips into e-waste and use them as they are.
About the ROM, same applies. You can't change it because the media doesn't allow it (at least if it's actually ROM and not EEPROM), and even if it did, unless it was software erasable it's absolutely impractical. So, pragmatically, you'll have to do with non-free.
The zealotry should be focused on replacing closed source software when they don't have practical alternatives to it, rather than go around simply telling people they shouldn't enjoy hardware with a good price/quality ratio to appease them. Put your money where your mouth is and all that.

Personally I'm not content with the status quo and it would be great to have laws which made devices more or completely open but I don't see it happening any time soon considering DMCA and other related laws protecting the profits of media industries.

As we chatted in a different thread, I share this view, as well as the pessimism about it becoming a reality.

[sinepgib]

4.- Publish your firmware source as free software. Problem solved.

Indeed. It isn't like firmware _has_ to be closed. There's a free reimplementation of the b43 family of wifi cards, in fact. It's sadly incomplete as it was just for a few research theses from a university rather than an attempt to replace the firmware for consumers.

[Danielsan]

I don't see problem here...

The only concerning is cultural, the linux-monoculture just want treat close and open software as equal under the blessing of being pragmatic.

Debian is, as usual, the last bastion to bring down and then happy closed software to all...

[Old Grouch]

Pragmatism isn't always the best approach, for slippery slope reasons. My preference (and I'm not a Debian developer) would be to allow non-free firmware and other software to be offered, but the person responsible for installation be required to explicitly choose to use non-free software: just as it is now.
The packaging should be set up to make it trivial to find and delete/not use non-free firmware and software; so not mixed willy-nilly into FLOSS areas.

I would also like more firmware to be provided via the Linux Firmware Vendor Service.

Pragmatically, most end-users will just allow the use of non-free software, but that choice should at least be kept explicitly opt-in, and visible. Personally, I would love to have an easy way to see just how much non-free firmware/software I'm using (audit), and be able to experiment easily to see just how much of it has acceptable free options, or can be done without.

[sinepgib]

Pragmatism isn't always the best approach, for slippery slope reasons. My preference (and I'm not a Debian developer) would be to allow non-free firmware and other software to be offered, but the person responsible for installation be required to explicitly choose to use non-free software: just as it is now.

I agree with this. The media should ship it though. Even if the checkbox is not enabled by default, just as Ubuntu does it. That said, I advocate for pragmatism for the simple reason that some free software is better than none, and you need to appeal to wider audiences for FLOSS to gain any relevance at all as a movement. So, would you rather have users who don't have the time or skills or patience or money (it is more expensive for the same performance) to get only hardware that can work properly without any blobs use Windows or have them use closed firmware with all the rest being FLOSS? Specially, those who migrate a computer they already have won't find a non-working setup appealing. So, I'm pretty sure of which I prefer.

I would also like more firmware to be provided via the Linux Firmware Vendor Service.

Yes, 100%.

[Waethorn]

Put graphics and other drivers in UEFI. This is already done with storage and networking, and the OS's don't need to know that the PCIe controller is a WD or Seagate or Samsung-whatever -- they can address it by AHCI calls. Why can't the same be done for OpenGL and other higher-level interfaces? Let the hardware do the work instead of flakey software drivers. It should just be a device with XYZ features that the OpenGL/Vulkan/DX driver doesn't need to know what brand it is or how to communicate with it other than to pass OpenGL/Vulkan/DX commands to it. One class driver in the OS. The vendor can update the firmware with binaries all day long, or not at all, outside of the scope of the OS. No more development headaches - just code toward a level of features. No need to test on different hardware so long as it meets "OpenGL/Vulkan/DX version specs" for feature compliance.

[wswartzendruber]

Or they could do something useful and make non-free primary while relegating free to religious zealots.

[DRanged]

I didn't think of that for some reason.

If I'm not wrong, Debian allready has a non-free packaging section on their update servers that you can easyly activate. Therefor I see no problem in having non-free on the ISO and supply a checkbox early in the installer.

On the other hand, distros like Ubuntu allready are a Debian with integrated non-free in the ISO. Not shure if Debian would gain any users that way?

It would be a damned side easier to install Debnian wirelessly on a notebook as otherwise you have to search for the non-free iso iinstaller and that is tucked away somewhere on the Debian website. Now I don't have any trouble to find that non-free ISO but otherwise you have to hookup your notebook with a network cable as that usually still wotks more or less.