> 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."
GNU software contains large volumes of source code to ensure their
code runs on Windows and other proprietary platforms.
Large means nearly a hundred thousand lines of #ifdef spaghetti spread
throughout their code base, which would otherwise not be there. If
the spaghetti wasn't there, the code quality would almost assuredly
be higher for everyone else on free software. Instead, the GNU project
insists that support for Windows and other commercial systems remain,
requiring all source code contributors to work around that practice,
and continue maintainance.
As we learned from OpenSSL in the last two years, #ifdef support for
dated commercial platforms comes with great risk, and rarely any
benefit.
We call that hypocrisy:
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to
which one's own behavior does not conform"
> The affirmations of FSF that I cited above are falses?
It is true RMS said the above. But it is also true the FSF does not
follow that same guidance to the full extent possible regarding their
own software.
And there is another mistake in the FSF guidance you quoted. Red Hat
Debian, Ubuntu, and most other Linux distributions. That's called not
pissing off your financial contribution base.
Apparently we are not allowed to have free choice as to how we make
software available, but must follow guidance of some external entity?
RMS has an axe to grind -- that is the real truth you are hunting for.
> 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".
Nice tie in. Unfortunately, beggars can't be choosers. You should
run some other software then.
