Theo de Raadt 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." > > 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.
I wanted ask the following: The FSF say the true about *BSD when say that *BSD include instructions for obtaining nonfree programs in their ports system? The FSF say the true about *BSD when say also that: In addition, their kernels include nonfree firmware blobs? Is true that: Nonfree firmware programs used with Linux, the kernel, are called “blobs”, and that's how we the FSF 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? Is true that they are not talking about firmware blobs? -- View this message in context: http://openbsd-archive.7691.n7.nabble.com/The-kernels-of-BSD-include-nonfree- firmware-blobs-tp283900p283907.html Sent from the openbsd user - misc mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
