On 08/01/17 09:02, Martin Hanson wrote:
> OpenBSD ALSO provides software that cannot freely be modified in any way and
> it DOES THIS WITHOUT EVEN ASKING THE USER!
5 seconds with a hex-editor says otherwise. My Windows 95 desktop used
to report "Starting Winblows 97.." on boot-up due to a hex-edited
"command.com" binary, which, if my memory serves me correctly, is a
closed-source non-free binary.
So yes, I could edit that binary, and yes for me it did work.
Would I be allowed to ship that modified binary? Probably not. But
then again, the license agreement in that case didn't permit me to ship
the binary unmodified either.
Would OpenBSD let me do the same to a firmware blob? Absolutely.
The firmware images, unless encrypted or digitally signed, could be
modified in the same manner. Would they work as intended? Maybe, maybe
not. It'd depend on the extent of the edits and the knowledge of the
person performing them.
Even if you have the firmware source, this isn't much more helpful
unless you have:
1. a toolchain to compile it
2. understanding of how the hardware works.
It'd be a safe bet that both are under NDA for many devices.
Ultimately, the choice is up to the user. Do they wish to use
${WIDGET_NEEDING_PROPRIETARY_FIRMWARE} or not?
If yes, they more than likely need the firmware blob that goes with it.
This is nitpicking though. Let's review the statement:
> "OpenBSD strives to provide code that can
> be freely used, copied, modified, and distributed by anyone and for any
> purpose."
The "code" in question is in CVS. It is in human readable form,
distributed under a permissive open-source license. If we take "code"
to mean "source code", that box is ticked.
*FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE*, they also provide that source code in a compiled
distribution form that is machine readable and distributed on media
images that is directly bootable on target hardware.
At *YOUR* option, you may choose to install OpenBSD using media produced
from these images. The media images, for convenience, include
additional firmware images that are needed for operating specific
peripherals.
In some cases, said firmware is *mandatory* for establishing network
links for downloading further images, for accessing storage devices
where the filesystem is kept or for human-machine interfacing.
The question in my mind is whether "code" should include the compiled
machine code, or whether it only covers the source code. To me, that
statement on the website refers to the source code that underpins the
distribution.
Your rights extend to forking OpenBSD into a Free-Software-Only BSD that
forbids such proprietary firmware. If you wish to produce and promote
such an OpenBSD fork, I doubt anyone here will stop you.
--
Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL)
I haven't lost my mind...
...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.
