> 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 project FreeBSD still embrace the Blob?
--
View this message in context:
http://openbsd-archive.7691.n7.nabble.com/The-kernels-of-BSD-include-nonfree-firmware-blobs-tp283900p283910.html
Sent from the openbsd user - misc mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
