GNU Linux-libre 6.7 Cleans Up Graphics Driver Blobs, Addresses New Drivers

[phoronix]

Phoronix: GNU Linux-libre 6.7 Cleans Up Graphics Driver Blobs, Addresses New Drivers

Following Linus Torvalds' release of the Linux 6.7 kernel last night, the FSFLA folks have released GNU Linux-libre 6.7-gnu as their downstream that strips out non-free microcode/firmware blob support and removes other bits that are not deemed in the interest of free software...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/GNU-Linux-Libre-6.7

[andyprough]

Dropped cleaning up of COPS Localtalk and rtl8192u wifi drivers, they got removed upstream

This work has been moving upstream for quite a few years. Eventually Linux-libre and the mainline kernel will converge.

[blackiwid]

Nice project a torch for a better future and reminder how much current hardware vendors suck.

[kurkosdr]

Nice project a torch for a better future and reminder how much current hardware vendors suck.

Hardware vendors have no obligation to open up their firmware, they paid money to develop it. It's the Linux kernel that went on with the idea of "all drivers go into the kernel" that sucks.

[blackiwid]

Hardware vendors have no obligation to open up their firmware, they paid money to develop it. It's the Linux kernel that went on with the idea of "all drivers go into the kernel" that sucks.

Well and they bill it to all their customers, not like 1mio dollar for each but the sum let's say 1mio divided to the number of customers.

So they don't pay it from their private money and if so then as investment to get it back 1-x times later. So in the END the customer pays 100% of the money of this firmware the only exception would be if the company goes bankrupt.

So if the customer pays for it why does he not own it?

[kurkosdr]

Well and they bill it to all their customers, not like 1mio dollar for each but the sum let's say 1mio divided to the number of customers.

So they don't pay it from their private money and if so then as investment to get it back 1-x times later. So in the END the customer pays 100% of the money of this firmware the only exception would be if the company goes bankrupt.

So if the customer pays for it why does he not own it?

Lol, are you really claiming that customers buying a product collectively acquire the right to not only see the firmware source code but redistribute it under a GPLv2-compatible license? Imagine how that would work: Once an Intel WiFi adapter reaches a certain sales threshold, the source code for the firmware becomes FOSS so the generally inferior competition (Realtek, Broadcom etc) can integrate it into their products.

The real solution is in the form of Atheros WiFi adapters, where the firmware runs in an embedded microcontroller on the WiFi adapter and the WiFi adapter is seen by the kernel as a glorified serial modem (with some extra options). Thing is, most Desktop Linux users don't care. Most Desktop Linux users are happy with the standard Linux kernel and don't care about the openness of the firmware of a semi-disposable WiFi adapter. The few people who care can hand-pick their hardware and run the Linux-libre kernel, so don't get me wrong, I'm glad this niche is served. Let's just not pretend it's a significant niche in any way and that hardware vendors "suck" for not paying attention to that niche.

[blackiwid]

Lol, are you really claiming that customers buying a product collectively acquire the right to not only see the firmware source code but redistribute it under a GPLv2-compatible license? Imagine how that would work: Once an Intel WiFi adapter reaches a certain sales threshold, the source code for the firmware becomes FOSS so the generally inferior competition (Realtek, Broadcom etc) can integrate it into their products.

Legally not because we have immoral laws, but my point wasn't what is legal it was a moral claim and I rejected your claim that the devs pay that in the end, in the End it pays the end user, so morally I don't see why they should not get it.

Of course being evil often makes you more money therefor as long as it is legal company do evil things. Also I would probably fault the lobbyists because that is something the EU could govern if everybody have to give it up and the market is not ignorable they would do it. Like Apple has to use the "inferior" usb-c port or at least deliver a adapter for it.

As if you can reverse engineer the hardware from having access to the software source code... and just 1:1 run it on it... they have a time advantage even if that would be possible which it isn't so the competitors come out 6 months later also if they build more or less identical hardware there are rules against that as you can't just copy 1:1 nike shoes.

And if they are only slightly inspired by it then that is great copyright is not to suppress technological advancement and make people rich the later is only a byproduct or a necessary evil to some extend to reach the exact opposite, it was there to make copying books happen more... to give somebody for a short time a monopol not to lock down markets and have marked dominating de facto monopolists.

[kurkosdr]

Legally not because we have immoral laws, but my point wasn't what is legal it was a moral claim and I rejected your claim that the devs pay that in the end, in the End it pays the end user, so morally I don't see why they should not get it.

Of course being evil often makes you more money therefor as long as it is legal company do evil things. Also I would probably fault the lobbyists because that is something the EU could govern if everybody have to give it up and the market is not ignorable they would do it. Like Apple has to use the "inferior" usb-c port or at least deliver a adapter for it.

As if you can reverse engineer the hardware from having access to the software source code... and just 1:1 run it on it... they have a time advantage even if that would be possible which it isn't so the competitors come out 6 months later also if they build more or less identical hardware there are rules against that as you can't just copy 1:1 nike shoes.

And if they are only slightly inspired by it then that is great copyright is not to suppress technological advancement and make people rich the later is only a byproduct or a necessary evil to some extend to reach the exact opposite, it was there to make copying books happen more... to give somebody for a short time a monopol not to lock down markets and have marked dominating de facto monopolists.

Sir, this is a Wendy's (this thread is not the place for your dissertation about how "copyright bad"). I am just pointing out the absurdity of saying that hardware vendors "suck" for maintaining a proprietary interest on proprietary firmware that is a competitive advantage. Which, you know, is the norm. Yes, firmware can be reverse-engineered by competitors, but it takes a lot of effort and giving competitors the source code makes it much much easier.

[phoron]

It depends on the case, but having free firmware, specially copyleft firmware could be a saving for the vendor. Other vendors can copy your firmware but you can copy other vendors' firmware. The problem is if every vendor dreams of being a monopolist (so no "other vendors" dreamed) and this more honest approach means they should compete on hardware, whereas they want to compete on software features, since they consider that cheaper and more marketable. One of the classical business models for free software was always "free the driver to sell more hardware".
We should just make the niche bigger. Instead of adding blob loaders to free software platforms, require free firmware from hardware vendors. If it grows, at a certain point it reaches some critical size and becomes more profitable. Then vendor embrace "open source" and then they swing back to "open core" and closing stuff. It's the consumers who need to demand freedom, and the governments who need to require sustanaibility (implying free software). If you let vendors have their way you end up with HP.

[blackiwid]

Sir, this is a Wendy's (this thread is not the place for your dissertation about how "copyright bad"). I am just pointing out the absurdity of saying that hardware vendors "suck" for maintaining a proprietary interest on proprietary firmware that is a competitive advantage. Which, you know, is the norm. Yes, firmware can be reverse-engineered by competitors, but it takes a lot of effort and giving competitors the source code makes it much much easier.

Users buy Hardware mosty by it's hardware features the absurdity that companies can just use different hardware but somehow gain huge benefit from using a firmware written for a different hardware is just not proven it's just a claim, I can see it for certain areas maybe with ssds, but just start using proprietary for the top products and for the normal 0815 thing without many extras make it free.

Child work was the norm at some point, it was still evil and still is. Being the norm is no real argument.

Take the AMD driver has AMD a big disadvantage from release the source code of the driver which is a bigger chunk of code and probably much more abstract from hardware so easier to transfer to other hardware, still Intel could either not profit at all from it or not enough to be even a real alternative, it looked good because they sold basically 16gb models probably below manufacturing costs and funny enough they had better A.I. Performance, but still they suck.

Hardware is what counts, if you have the better hardware likely the Firmware doesn't make not the difference in 99% of cases. I stay with that claim that Nvidia don't release the source to implement 0 day backdoors (bugs) to sell to the government maybe not like a official deal but they do government deals and probably the conditions or when they get it it's because they deliver 0day backdoors to the 3 letter mafias... which again supports my point that it's even more evil.