this has been discussed ad-nauseam, please search the archives. (ps: do not respond to this, we are not interested in having this discussion again)
On 2015 Nov 27 (Fri) at 08:33:00 -0700 (-0700), fran??ais wrote: :The Free Software Foundation (FSF) says that: : :"FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree :programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include nonfree :firmware blobs. : :Nonfree firmware programs used with Linux, the kernel, are called :???blobs???, :and that's how we use the term. In BSD parlance, the term ???blob??? means :something else: a nonfree driver. OpenBSD and perhaps other BSD :distributions (called ???projects??? by BSD developers) have the policy of :not :including those. That is the right policy, as regards drivers; but when the :developers say these distributions ???contain no blobs???, it causes a :misunderstanding. They are not talking about firmware blobs. : :No BSD distribution has policies against proprietary binary-only firmware :that might be loaded even by free drivers." : :The affirmations of FSF that I cited above are falses? : :With spying revelations, it is well-known that non-free firmware can contain :backdoors. ( just one recent example: :http://www.wired.com/2015/02/nsa-firmware-hacking/ ) : :I would feel a lot safer if the kernel and packages were fully free, :containing no non-free drivers nor non-free "firmware".
