Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
Op 09-01-17 om 10:05 schreef Stefan Sperling: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:39:41AM +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: >> On Sun, 8 Jan 2017, Stefan Sperling wrote: >> The above policy applies to the base system code. It does not apply to ports and packages of third party software, i.e. anything listed by pkg_info. >> >>> Perhaps the whole only a misunderstanding of the original poster that >>> could have been clarified with this few lines from the beginning? >>> >>> Rodrigo. >> >> Good point, and yes it would. >> >> However, the above statement that the policy only applies to the base code >> isn't mentioned anywhere in the policy. >> >> Stefan, from where do you get that conclusion? > > You've finally been given an acceptable answer yet you're still asking a > trivia question just to keep this stupid thread going? > Someone asks a question about policy on a list. Now there are two possibilities: A) "You're right, thanks!" which means a valid point was raised B) "You misunderstand" which means "Do some research/think before posting". This thread has a different form: If the reply was (A) then he'd correctly think he was a well thinking person. Now the reply is (B) and he seems to think "Everybody is more stupid then I, because they disagree." when that doesn't work he switches to "See, I am a person who _sounds_ reasonable, (but still I am not wrong...)" So, it looks like he thinks he's either right or else not wrong. A discussion won't help, a link to Sir Karl Popper might. ;-)
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:39:41AM +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: > On Sun, 8 Jan 2017, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > >> The above policy applies to the base system code. > >> It does not apply to ports and packages of third party software, i.e. > >> anything > >> listed by pkg_info. > > > Perhaps the whole only a misunderstanding of the original poster that > > could have been clarified with this few lines from the beginning? > > > > Rodrigo. > > Good point, and yes it would. > > However, the above statement that the policy only applies to the base code > isn't mentioned anywhere in the policy. > > Stefan, from where do you get that conclusion? You've finally been given an acceptable answer yet you're still asking a trivia question just to keep this stupid thread going?
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
This guy took Theo's advice to go elsewhere with this even before the advice was given. He's apparently appointed himself an anti-blob vigilante and has also landed on Alpine and Void Linux. I had an exchange with him on the Alpine forum and tried this: "Then I suggest that you think hard about what Theo had to say. *You* made the decision to buy a particular bit of hardware. I think it's fair to assume that that means that you want to use it. The hardware we are discussing needs firmware in order to operate. If that firmware is in ROM in the device or in writeable memory in the device, *it needs to be there, or the device won't function*. So in the cases where the memory is writeable, you are really asking that the OS ask you "do you want device A to function or not?". That's a question that doesn't need asking, in my opinion, and won't be asked if the firmware is in ROM (so it's odd to be complaining if the question doesn't get asked when loading the firmware into writeable memory; what difference does it make what kind of memory it's in?). If you were/are concerned about the device's firmware containing backdoors, then either you should have thought about that before buying it, or you should remove the device, if possible, from your system, and replace it with something that makes you happy. Theo is right -- this is an issue created by the end-user by her/his choice of hardware." Didn't work. I doubt that any reasonable argument will. /Don Allen On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 11:04 PM, wrote: > Fri, 06 Jan 2017 22:45:47 +0100 Martin Hanson > > Hi, > > > > I know that we cannot trust the hardware vendors and that all the > > hardware is running firmware on ROMS, except some which are provided > > be the kernel. > > Hi Martin, > > This means you either remove parts you don't trust or power off the system. > Your trust and choice of hardware is yours only personal preferences setup. > > When you start with contradicting statements you can't solve your problems. > Fix yourself up with the parts that you trust and appreciate being happier. > > > However, I fail to understand the reason for this patch: > > > > http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/distrib/ > miniroot/install.sub?f=h#rev1.654 > > The log says that it "Saves 141 precious bytes on the inside of the media." > There is nothing preventing you from understanding the reason for the diff. > > > It was really nice when OpenBSD asked during installation. > > It is a matter of convenience and optimisation for which the group decided. > You were already told numerous times your request does not change anything. > > It's a question overhead as there is one other obvious choice: break exit. > To do as you were instructed already: remove the offending hardware parts. > > > Yes, it can be argued that since we cannot get any open hardware at > > all it doesn't matter whether the firmware is located on a ROM or if > > it's installed by the kernel, but if we use that logic we might as > > well just use whatever binary driver blob the vendors make for > > everything, right? > > No, it can not be argued. You have gone way beyond any polite useful talk. > Your statements are malformed and do not present the reality but your rant. > > You were told many times your chosen topic is, inappropriately provocative. > You are about 5 years and 2 months late to ask the question publicly again. > > > What have I misunderstood? > > > > Kind regards, > > Martin > > You have misunderstood your complaint to add back the question solves this. > You must carry out your questions to the hardware and firmware vendors now. > > You have asked your questions and they were answered. Now, use your powers > to further your personal development, then report mission success upstream. > > Kind regards, > Anton
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
Fri, 06 Jan 2017 22:45:47 +0100 Martin Hanson > Hi, > > I know that we cannot trust the hardware vendors and that all the > hardware is running firmware on ROMS, except some which are provided > be the kernel. Hi Martin, This means you either remove parts you don't trust or power off the system. Your trust and choice of hardware is yours only personal preferences setup. When you start with contradicting statements you can't solve your problems. Fix yourself up with the parts that you trust and appreciate being happier. > However, I fail to understand the reason for this patch: > > http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/distrib/miniroot/install.sub?f=h#rev1.654 The log says that it "Saves 141 precious bytes on the inside of the media." There is nothing preventing you from understanding the reason for the diff. > It was really nice when OpenBSD asked during installation. It is a matter of convenience and optimisation for which the group decided. You were already told numerous times your request does not change anything. It's a question overhead as there is one other obvious choice: break exit. To do as you were instructed already: remove the offending hardware parts. > Yes, it can be argued that since we cannot get any open hardware at > all it doesn't matter whether the firmware is located on a ROM or if > it's installed by the kernel, but if we use that logic we might as > well just use whatever binary driver blob the vendors make for > everything, right? No, it can not be argued. You have gone way beyond any polite useful talk. Your statements are malformed and do not present the reality but your rant. You were told many times your chosen topic is, inappropriately provocative. You are about 5 years and 2 months late to ask the question publicly again. > What have I misunderstood? > > Kind regards, > Martin You have misunderstood your complaint to add back the question solves this. You must carry out your questions to the hardware and firmware vendors now. You have asked your questions and they were answered. Now, use your powers to further your personal development, then report mission success upstream. Kind regards, Anton
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017, Stefan Sperling wrote: >> The above policy applies to the base system code. >> It does not apply to ports and packages of third party software, i.e. >> anything >> listed by pkg_info. > Perhaps the whole only a misunderstanding of the original poster that > could have been clarified with this few lines from the beginning? > > Rodrigo. Good point, and yes it would. However, the above statement that the policy only applies to the base code isn't mentioned anywhere in the policy. Stefan, from where do you get that conclusion?
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017, Stefan Sperling wrote: The above policy applies to the base system code. It does not apply to ports and packages of third party software, i.e. anything listed by pkg_info. Perhaps the whole only a misunderstanding of the original poster that could have been clarified with this few lines from the beginning? Rodrigo.
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 12:02:21AM +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: > On policy page it clearly says: "OpenBSD strives to provide code that can > be freely used, copied, modified, and distributed by anyone and for any > purpose." > > This is MISGUIDING! Where is this secret firmware code which was developed by the OpenBSD project? I only see secret firmware code developed by hardware vendors. The above policy applies to the base system code. It does not apply to ports and packages of third party software, i.e. anything listed by pkg_info. Take this discussion to the hardware vendors. Venting on this list as you did does not help anyone and actually makes things worse for the entire free software community because it creates a toxic environment.
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
08.01.2017, 02:53, "Peter Rippe" : > I think it absolutely is a language issue: > >> On policy page it clearly says: "OpenBSD strives to provide code that can > > be freely used, copied, modified, and distributed by anyone and for any > purpose." > > Operative word being **strives** - might want to look it up. > > It does not say 'guaranteed', 'only', nor 'strictly' - It says they make a > good > effort to provide such, and they certainly do - particularly compared to the > rest of the OS landscape. Alright, so lets look the word **strives** up: Cambridge dictionary: "to try hard to do something or make something happen, esp. for a long time or against difficulties" Macmillan dictionary: "to make a lot of effort to achieve something" Oxford dictionary: "Make great efforts to achieve or obtain something" Clearly it's NOT a language thing. OpenBSD does NOT **strive** "to provide code that can be freely used, copied, modified..". There is no striving being done here, except for the complete opposite, as Theo himself so plainly put it, they actually **strive** to provide the firmware blobs which cannot be modified in any way. The fact is that OpenBSD has a MISLEADING policy. > Nothing is going to change. Go try tugging on emotions elsewhere. Actually, Theo I'm quite sure you need to change *something*: http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02776.html But hey.. who gives a shit right?!
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
Lol...wow, okclearly its not a language issue, its a 'you' issue... you seem to think that "making an effort", or "trying", or "trying against difficulties" (your quote) is somehow synonymous with "guarantee", "success"... And as Theo so plainly put it, >If you don't want such firmwares loaded onto the hardware, then don't >buy the hardware that needs it. On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:28 PM, Martin Hanson wrote: > 08.01.2017, 02:53, "Peter Rippe" : >> I think it absolutely is a language issue: >> >>> On policy page it clearly says: "OpenBSD strives to provide code that can >> >> be freely used, copied, modified, and distributed by anyone and for any >> purpose." >> >> Operative word being **strives** - might want to look it up. >> >> It does not say 'guaranteed', 'only', nor 'strictly' - It says they make a >> good >> effort to provide such, and they certainly do - particularly compared to the >> rest of the OS landscape. > > Alright, so lets look the word **strives** up: > > Cambridge dictionary: > > "to try hard to do something or make something happen, esp. for a long time > or against difficulties" > > Macmillan dictionary: > > "to make a lot of effort to achieve something" > > Oxford dictionary: > > "Make great efforts to achieve or obtain something" > > Clearly it's NOT a language thing. > > OpenBSD does NOT **strive** "to provide code that can be freely used, copied, > modified..". There is no striving being done here, except for the complete > opposite, as Theo himself so plainly put it, they actually **strive** to > provide the > firmware blobs which cannot be modified in any way. > > The fact is that OpenBSD has a MISLEADING policy. > >> Nothing is going to change. Go try tugging on emotions elsewhere. > > Actually, Theo I'm quite sure you need to change *something*: > > http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02776.html > > But hey.. who gives a shit right?!
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
On 08/01/17 12:28, Martin Hanson wrote: >> Nothing is going to change. Go try tugging on emotions elsewhere. > Actually, Theo I'm quite sure you need to change *something*: Perhaps a small alteration to the subscribers on this list… namely removing greencopperm...@yandex.com from it. -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL) I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
08.01.2017, 01:29, "Mike Burns" : > On 2017-01-08 00.02.21 +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: >> The issue is a misguiding policy statement. > > It could be a language issue. I'm a native speaker and everything Theo, > et al., are saying matches perfectly with the policy statement, to me. > Perhaps you can suggest improved wording. Patches go to tech@. I don't believe it's a language issue. What Theo has explained acts as a "clarification" of the policy, which is fine in itself, but it needs to be added. The policy statement alone, as is, is misguiding and I even believe that it's a problem from a legal stand point, but that's beside the matter. Theo himself can correct his faulty policy.
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
ludovic coues said: > You are free to use OpenBSD code. > You are free to copy OpenBSD code. > You are free to modify OpenBSD code. > You are free to distribute you fork. > > So unless your dictionary is twisted, shipping non-free firmware isn't > an exception to these freedom. You're wrong. That's not what it says on the OpenBSD website. Please read on. Stefan Sperling said: > I agree with Theo. Don't buy hardware you don't like. Avoiding the hardware isn't the issue! The issue is MISGUIDANCE by OpenBSD! On the frontpage of openbsd.org it says "free" with big bold letters: "The OpenBSD project produces a FREE, multi-platform 4.4BSD-based UNIX-like operating system." And there is a link to the explanation of the "free" term used by OpenBSD: https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html The explanation is not as given by "ludovic coues" in the above. On policy page it clearly says: "OpenBSD strives to provide code that can be freely used, copied, modified, and distributed by anyone and for any purpose." This is MISGUIDING! OpenBSD ALSO provides software that cannot freely be modified in any way and it DOES THIS WITHOUT EVEN ASKING THE USER! Stop avoiding the issue by pointing to problems with "crappy" hardware and vendors. This is not the issue. The issue is a misguiding policy statement.
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
I think it absolutely is a language issue: > On policy page it clearly says: "OpenBSD strives to provide code that can be freely used, copied, modified, and distributed by anyone and for any purpose." Operative word being **strives** - might want to look it up. It does not say 'guaranteed', 'only', nor 'strictly' - It says they make a good effort to provide such, and they certainly do - particularly compared to the rest of the OS landscape. On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Martin Hanson wrote: > 08.01.2017, 01:29, "Mike Burns" : >> On 2017-01-08 00.02.21 +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: >>> The issue is a misguiding policy statement. >> >> It could be a language issue. I'm a native speaker and everything Theo, >> et al., are saying matches perfectly with the policy statement, to me. >> Perhaps you can suggest improved wording. Patches go to tech@. > > I don't believe it's a language issue. What Theo has explained acts as a > "clarification" of the policy, which is fine in itself, but it needs to be > added. > > The policy statement alone, as is, is misguiding and I even believe that > it's a problem from a legal stand point, but that's beside the matter. > > Theo himself can correct his faulty policy.
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
> 08.01.2017, 01:29, "Mike Burns" : > > On 2017-01-08 00.02.21 +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: > >> Â The issue is a misguiding policy statement. > > > > It could be a language issue. I'm a native speaker and everything Theo, > > et al., are saying matches perfectly with the policy statement, to me. > > Perhaps you can suggest improved wording. Patches go to tech@. > > I don't believe it's a language issue. What Theo has explained acts as a > "clarification" of the policy, which is fine in itself, but it needs to be > added. > > The policy statement alone, as is, is misguiding and I even believe that > it's a problem from a legal stand point, but that's beside the matter. > > Theo himself can correct his faulty policy. Nothing is going to change. Go try tugging on emotions elsewhere.
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
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.
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
On 2017-01-08 00.02.21 +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: > The issue is a misguiding policy statement. It could be a language issue. I'm a native speaker and everything Theo, et al., are saying matches perfectly with the policy statement, to me. Perhaps you can suggest improved wording. Patches go to tech@.
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
at the risk of feeding a troll... see below On 8 Jan 2017 at 0:02, Martin Hanson wrote: > ludovic coues said: > > > You are free to use OpenBSD code. > > You are free to copy OpenBSD code. > > You are free to modify OpenBSD code. > > You are free to distribute you fork. > > > > So unless your dictionary is twisted, shipping non-free firmware isn't > > an exception to these freedom. > > You're wrong. That's not what it says on the OpenBSD website. Please > read on. > > Stefan Sperling said: > > > I agree with Theo. Don't buy hardware you don't like. > > Avoiding the hardware isn't the issue! > > The issue is MISGUIDANCE by OpenBSD! > > On the frontpage of openbsd.org it says "free" with big bold letters: > > "The OpenBSD project produces a FREE, multi-platform 4.4BSD-based > UNIX-like operating system." > > And there is a link to the explanation of the "free" term used by > OpenBSD: > > https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html > > The explanation is not as given by "ludovic coues" in the above. > > On policy page it clearly says: "OpenBSD strives to provide code that > can be freely used, copied, modified, and distributed by anyone and for > any purpose." > > This is MISGUIDING! > > OpenBSD ALSO provides software that cannot freely be modified in any way > and it DOES THIS WITHOUT EVEN ASKING THE USER! No, it does not. Stop confusing SOFTWARE (general purpose code running on the main processor of the computer) with FIRMWARE (specilized instructions embedded in hardware and required to make that hardware operate in a prescribed manner). As has been pointed out numerous times, OpenBSD does not make a distinction between firmware that is pre- installed in hardware components of your computer and firmware that is loaded onto similar hardware component each time the computer starts. > Stop avoiding the issue by pointing to problems with "crappy" hardware > and vendors. This is not the issue. > > The issue is a misguiding policy statement.
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 10:16:39AM -0500, Kenneth Gober wrote: >> The difference is, closed source firmware runs on the device itself >> and if it's buggy, generally the most it will do is make the device >> appear to be non-functional or unreliable. > > If a PCI device has unrestricted DMA access, as is the case in most laptops > and PCs today as far as I know (no IOMMU), it can do a lot of damage. > In this case firmware running on devices essentially has root privileges > on the OS since the firmware could modify arbitrary memory. > > It all boils down to whether you trust hardware vendors to not use their > powers against you. There is nothing an OS kernel could do to prevent > attacks at this level. Quite so. I actually had a few sentences on this but I deleted them due to it straying too far off topic. But the end result as you say is, if you don't trust the hardware don't use it. An OpenBSD firmware prompt is not going to make you safe from malicious hardware. -ken
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 10:16:39AM -0500, Kenneth Gober wrote: > The difference is, closed source firmware runs on the device itself > and if it's buggy, generally the most it will do is make the device > appear to be non-functional or unreliable. If a PCI device has unrestricted DMA access, as is the case in most laptops and PCs today as far as I know (no IOMMU), it can do a lot of damage. In this case firmware running on devices essentially has root privileges on the OS since the firmware could modify arbitrary memory. It all boils down to whether you trust hardware vendors to not use their powers against you. There is nothing an OS kernel could do to prevent attacks at this level. This topic is regularly covered at hacker conferences, e.g. here: https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8314-bootstraping_a_slightly_more_secure_laptop (This mostly talks about BIOS code which actually runs on the main CPU but also mentions device firmware as a potential threat).
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Martin Hanson wrote: > Yes, it can be argued that since we cannot get any open hardware at all it doesn't matter whether the firmware is located on a ROM or if it's installed by the kernel, but if we use that logic we might as well just use whatever binary driver blob the vendors make for everything, right? > > If no, then why not, what's the difference between running closed source firmware and closed source drivers? The difference is, closed source firmware runs on the device itself and if it's buggy, generally the most it will do is make the device appear to be non-functional or unreliable. An open-source driver can detect a device malfunction and handle it (or if it doesn't it can potentially be modified to do so). A closed source driver runs as part of the kernel and has ready access to all parts of the kernel, and even user memory. A buggy driver could merely cause the device to appear to work improperly (if you're lucky), or it could corrupt kernel memory in subtle ways causing unrelated parts of the system to fail after an indeterminate amount of time has passed, and in such a situation there is little you can do to reasonably fix the problem without driver source except to remove the driver. Clearly the second situation (closed driver) is the worse one to be in, and from a practical perspective, the first one is nearly unavoidable nowadays. Even my mouse has closed-source firmware in it and there is little point in putting an extra prompt in the installer that shows up depending on whether my firmware is pre-installed in a ROM or not. Because let's be clear here, that's what that prompt signaled. Not that your device may be using non-free firmware, but rather that your device doesn't store its firmware on-board but needs to have it loaded. Maybe someday we will have virtual kernels running in user mode jails where we can safely run closed driver blobs without risking the rest of the kernel, and if that ever happens then maybe closed driver blobs might be OK. If you absolutely refuse to use non-free hardware then the prompt will not save you -- all a vendor has to do to evade the prompt is put their firmware in ROM. Your only solution here is dligent research and careful choice of vendors, and if you're doing that then the prompt isn't needed anyway. So the prompt was ignored by the people who don't care, and ineffective for the people who do care, and therefore useless. -ken
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 12:22:55AM +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: > I have misunderstood the purpose and use of the term "free" of OpenBSD > then. > > "OpenBSD strives to provide code that can be freely used, copied, modified, > and distributed by anyone and for any purpose", apparently there exists > exceptions to this then. > > Of course it doesn't say anything like, "OpenBSD strives to ONLY provide.." I agree with Theo. Don't buy hardware you don't like. The OpenBSD project does not develop hardware or firmware. Please complain to the vendors who build this shit instead of complaining to us. We are just trying to keep our OS running on whatever hardware we can actually support with reasonable effort. There is a lot more valuable work being done within OpenBSD than just hardware support, and yet all that other work would not happen without hardware support. Meanwhile on Debian people are happily running "free" drivers which aren't blobs but instead are an unmaintainable mess such as this: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/phy/phy_n.c Nobody outside of Broadcom can reasonably maintain this obfuscated C code because nobody outside of Broadcom has hardware docs. Yet Linux imports it since they apparently just let vendors commit whatever code to their tree. This driver even has the right license but we still can't port this because it would be impractical for us to maintain. This single source file is larger than all of the existing wireless code in OpenBSD. So we don't support current Broadcom wifi devices even though they don't need any firmware! Blobs exist because vendors try to keep secrets, and evidently they even keep secrets when they "voluntarily" give code to Linux under BSD licence. What is really needed is a cultural shift towards open collaboration and free (in all meanings) hardware documentation. The rest will follow.
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
06.01.2017, 23:26, "Theo de Raadt" : > If you don't want such firmwares loaded onto the hardware, then don't > buy the hardware that needs it. > > There is your choice. > > I see no value in asking a user the question. I have misunderstood the purpose and use of the term "free" of OpenBSD then. "OpenBSD strives to provide code that can be freely used, copied, modified, and distributed by anyone and for any purpose", apparently there exists exceptions to this then. Of course it doesn't say anything like, "OpenBSD strives to ONLY provide.." Sorry, my mistake! > END OF CONVERSATION. > >> I know that we cannot trust the hardware vendors and that all the hardware >> is running firmware on ROMS, except some which are provided be the kernel. >> >> However, I fail to understand the reason for this patch: >> >> >> http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/distrib/miniroot/install.sub?f=h#rev1.654 >> >> It was really nice when OpenBSD asked during installation. >> >> Yes, it can be argued that since we cannot get any open hardware at all it >> doesn't matter whether the firmware is located on a ROM or if it's installed >> by the kernel, but if we use that logic we might as well just use whatever >> binary driver blob the vendors make for everything, right? >> >> If no, then why not, what's the difference between running closed source >> firmware and closed source drivers? >> >> During a Debian installation, or even a Linux Mint installation, the user >> gets the choice whether he wants to install these "non-free firmware blobs". >> >> What have I misunderstood? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Martin
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
This has been discussed repeatedly on the mailing lists. Drivers run in user oder kernel space and should interface with devices sanely (and safely). Whereas in the case of closed firmware, as you said yourself, it doesn’t really matter where it is loaded from. > On 06 Jan 2017, at 22:45, Martin Hanson wrote: > > Hi, > > I know that we cannot trust the hardware vendors and that all the hardware is running firmware on ROMS, except some which are provided be the kernel. > > However, I fail to understand the reason for this patch: > > http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/distrib/miniroot/install.sub?f=h #rev1.654 > > It was really nice when OpenBSD asked during installation. > > Yes, it can be argued that since we cannot get any open hardware at all it doesn't matter whether the firmware is located on a ROM or if it's installed by the kernel, but if we use that logic we might as well just use whatever binary driver blob the vendors make for everything, right? > > If no, then why not, what's the difference between running closed source firmware and closed source drivers? > > During a Debian installation, or even a Linux Mint installation, the user gets the choice whether he wants to install these "non-free firmware blobs". > > What have I misunderstood? > > Kind regards, > > Martin
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
> Martin Troll Troll Troll!
Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user
If you don't want such firmwares loaded onto the hardware, then don't buy the hardware that needs it. There is your choice. I see no value in asking a user the question. END OF CONVERSATION. > I know that we cannot trust the hardware vendors and that all the hardware is > running firmware on ROMS, except some which are provided be the kernel. > > However, I fail to understand the reason for this patch: > > http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/distrib/miniroot/install.sub?f=h#rev1.654 > > It was really nice when OpenBSD asked during installation. > > Yes, it can be argued that since we cannot get any open hardware at all it > doesn't matter whether the firmware is located on a ROM or if it's installed > by the kernel, but if we use that logic we might as well just use whatever > binary driver blob the vendors make for everything, right? > > If no, then why not, what's the difference between running closed source > firmware and closed source drivers? > > During a Debian installation, or even a Linux Mint installation, the user > gets the choice whether he wants to install these "non-free firmware blobs". > > What have I misunderstood? > > Kind regards, > > Martin
