On 07/19/2012 09:19 AM, Johnny A. Solbu wrote:
Because it is the same issiue. I treat firmwares the same as I treat any other software. if a device can't work without installing a package contaning non-free firmware, I'm not using it. In order to use it I might need to install a non-free software package (rpm, deb, tarball). How is that any different than a driver? Both have to be installed by the user. (yes, yes, the default might be to have them preinstalled in some distros, that is not the issiue.)
All of this (including the OP) is really a group of artificial distinctions. All CPUs contain microcode or some programming equivalent, even going back to the days of gates wired in series. You may get a Principles of Operation manual that tells you what the instructions (are supposed to) do in detail, but that's not the same as seeing the "source" (microcode or wiring) that makes it happen, and it certainly doesn't allow you to change it at will.
Free Software is about not removing your ability to examine and modify things you can reasonably be expected to have the skills and equipment to examine and modify. Most of us don't have the ability to manufacture our own disk controllers or interrupt controllers. Yet both of those contain closed-source custom programming, and nobody seems to think twice about using them in FS environments.
Personally, I think that the reasonable lower limit on "free" expectations is the ability to burn your own BIOS ROMs if you wish to. As far as hardware devices that are built with custom programming, I don't see any distinction between wired logic, immutable ROMs, or flashable/loadable firmware. Those are all just aspects of how the manufacturer supports the device (assuming he does). Loadable firmware may make it simpler for the manufacturer to supply updates and easier for you to get fixes, but it's no more closed than wired logic is.
In economic terms, what you seem to be asking for is absolute unbundling, where every manufacturer is limited to making one and only one thing and relying on multiple competing outside suppliers for other components with open standards in force at each juncture.
That works best when "commons" are involved, e. g. infrastructure that can only have one owner, just as the fiber optic cable in a town or the POTS copper cable. In those cases, whoever granted the monopoly (usually local government) can classify the resource as a public utility and require the owner to rent its capacity to anyone who has the price. This is what happened years back in the U.S. with telephone service and dial-up ISPs, where the phone companies were told they couldn't refuse to carry data traffic for independent ISPs at competitive rates.
Unfortunately, the farther down you drill with this, the greater the negative impact on innovation. If I design a graphic card and I'm not allowed to bring it to market until I can convince one or more independent software development companies to do the programming with an open, documented interface, I may not be able to financially survive the delay. Theoretically, if the market wants me to document the interface so that others can compete with me on the firmware, it will punish me if I don't. But in the meantime, I have the opportunity to make early profits that will allow me to cover the overhead of doing that later on.
In short, I think you'll find that entusiasm for the Free Software concept in the marketplace will dwindle severely as you try to take it further and further down to the level of electrons. Most people will weigh the inconvenience against the probability that they or anyone acting on their behalf will ever exploit that freedom.
