GNU Linux-libre 4.3 Warns Of Intel Skylake Sound, New AMDGPU Blobs

[DrYak]

Addendum:

And hence the whole GPLv2 vs. GPLv3 vs DRM & Tivo debate.

Some manufacturer tried to circumvent the basic freedoms that are the intent of RMS and purpose of GPL (an and user should be free to tinker their stuff) by putting DRM.
- The manufacturer's idea is that THE DO provide the GPL code. It just happens that it's not possible to change it (due to DRM)
- The RMS answer is that the situation is different: ROMs can't be changed to begin with, a DRMed device could in theory but the end-user is prevented in practice because the keys are secret. The end-user is locked out of having access to tinker/hack/modifie *THEIR OWN* device, but a 3rd party (the manufacturer) can do it.

[MoonMoon]

...but that requires the code to be modifiable to begin with. If the code is immutable and set metaphorically into stone, the whole point is moot.
(Just the same way as the logic of a CPU or of an ASIC is set litteraly into silicone and can't be changed. So there's no way to study/modify/share the chip. Unlike an FPGA which *CAN* be modified. Or the Verilog language used to describe the logic itself which is modifiable before being printed on silicone).

Hence the whole ROM story. It's beyond the scope of what free software is about.

Modern Intel and AMD CPUs can load microcode updates on boot to alter their internal logic, for example to fix bugs. By your definition, requiring a code to be modifiable, all modern AMD and Intel CPUs are non-free products and shouldn't be used or endorsed by the FSF. Funnily, this isn't happening.

But, you are right, this whole thing is beyond the scope of free software, so they shouldn't have come up with this moronic "software becomes hardware" thing in the first place.

[bridgman]

Modern Intel and AMD CPUs can load microcode updates on boot to alter their internal logic, for example to fix bugs. By your definition, requiring a code to be modifiable, all modern AMD and Intel CPUs are non-free products and shouldn't be used or endorsed by the FSF. Funnily, this isn't happening.

AFAIK that ethical dilemma is handled by disabling CPU microcode updates, and hence disabling bug fixes. So it sort of is happening AFAIK.

[IsacDaavid]

Now, with the FSF definition of "if it is unchangeable in hardware it isn't software anymore and therefore it can't be non-free" they actively endorse hardware that has the firmware in ROM, making bugfixes practically impossible even if the manufacturer wants to provide fixes.

Ask yourself, how would the manufacturer provide bugfixes if the firmware is really unmodifiable?

In what sense is not considering ROM as software tantamount to actively endorsing hardware that has firmware in ROM? The FSF still thinks bugs and backdoors in ROM and hardware matter, it's just that these things are out of the scope of the Free Software Foundation.