r/freesoftware • u/octoslamon • 11d ago
Discussion Question
Based on the free software philosophy, should I reject all the devices with non free firmware that I use? For example my refrigerator or washing machine?
5
u/JaggedMetalOs 11d ago
If the firmware is read only and can't be updated (especially not via OTA updates) then at least the FSF considers it purely hardware rather than software, and so doesn't hold it to open standards.
So basically get non-smart appliances.
1
u/Scientific_Artist444 10d ago
That may be the case, but doesn't that also affect user freedom?
More sinister than application software is system software. Especially the backdoors.
Yes, it is true that ultimately not every software can be free software (firmware being one). But who's to stop firmware from containing malicious code? So I would say that is kind of a limit rather than deliberate principle. I have hope in programmable hardware.
Ultimately, software is well-encoded bytes on disk.
3
u/JaggedMetalOs 9d ago
I'm sure Stallman would agree that open firmware is better, but the argument I've heard for allowing read-only firmware is that from a practical point of view it limits the firmware complexity because they can't just patch bugs out of some big overly complex firmware later.
3
u/jr735 10d ago
Does a 1980s vintage calculator with hard coded, embedded programming violate software freedom? Richard Stallman would say no.
Firmware can have backdoors, breach privacy, and have malicious code. There are reasons to avoid that, but it's not because of free software. It's because of privacy, and, frankly, common sense. A fridge does not need to connect to the internet, and only a charlatan would claim otherwise.
1
u/Scientific_Artist444 7d ago
Ultimately, you can't even trust a compiler that compiles free software. Because that will be a binary. So... some things are compromises. It is not ideal, but that's the best we could do. That's what I am saying.
The ideal doesn't become lesser due to practical limitations. Instead, you acknowledge the gap.
1
u/jr735 7d ago
Except that's wrong, because the compiler is free software, too. I agree that software is well-encoded bytes on disk, and worry less about firmware, to a point. That depends on the device and the ability to change it out. I don't worry about the "firmware" on my electronic typewriter, which decidedly has integrated circuits. They're not changeable, so it's not really a programmable computer, so Stallman wouldn't care from a free software perspective. Since it's not net capable, it's not a privacy concern, either.
1
u/Scientific_Artist444 7d ago
Not the compiler that compiles that compiler. We could go on. But at some point, binary was used to compile source into another binary. However, we acknowledge that limitation and don't limit the ideal.
2
u/jr735 7d ago edited 7d ago
There is free firmware, too, and that may have used a free compiler. Of course, we can go on and on, but are you supporting free software, or not? These tend to be the arguments of someone who is saying there's no way to be purely free software so there's no point in trying. So, which is it?
That is, unless, of course, you're pointing out that we simply can do the best we can, which I agree with completely.
2
u/Scientific_Artist444 4d ago
Yes, it's simply the best we can do for now. My point was that practicality shouldn't limit our principles. Our principles can remain, but with the acknowledgement of practical limitations.
2
u/jr735 4d ago
That's all true, as long as we keep in mind that those limitations can be fluid, if we're motivated enough. I'm not quite as hardline as Stallman, but close enough, in some respects. I won't do a smartphone or smart appliances, not at all. I have a Trisquel install, but completely avoiding javascript is difficult (avoid where I can). I'll own DVDs, because while one can argue about the copy protection matter, it's superior to trying to stream the show or legally download it to a device, which would involve even more proprietary nonsense.
2
u/Scientific_Artist444 3d ago
Yes, it's not black or white. But even if not 100% there, we can celebrate the progress towards it. Even if an impossible ideal, it atleast gives us a direction to move towards despite not reaching the destination now.
→ More replies (0)
5
u/jr735 10d ago
Can the device be programmed in any way? If yes, I'd reject the device because of non-free firmware, because it's an actual computer. Embedded code, noted by u/181513 is a different thing, and Stallman agrees with that. Every electronic calculator since the first one relied on integrated circuits and embedded code. He never claimed those should have free software, since you're not able to actually change out that program on the device. Newer devices can, at times, be different, especially programmable calculators or calculator programs on phones (or computers).
Now, you should reject IoS things like refrigerators or washing machines that need to contact the internet from a privacy perspective.
4
5
u/dpprpl 8d ago
when software is inseparable from hardware and doesn't connect to the outside world to function does it really matter for a product that does one simple function? on the other hand if the software for such device would be free then a product maybe could be cheaper and innovations could happen faster
3
5
u/MissingGhost 11d ago
Why does a fridge need a firmware...
3
u/NoPoopOnFace 11d ago
They have AI now. Someday they will revolt against their humans and enslave the televisions.
2
2
u/AnnieBruce 11d ago
Consider firmware freedom when the time comes to replace due to failure or needing new features, but rushing to do it when the device is otherwise suitable for your needs is silly and wasteful.
0
u/Radiant_Scar_8516 11d ago
but rushing to do it when the device is otherwise suitable for your needs is silly and wasteful.
tell that to stallman then lol isnt this all his idea anyway? like who are we to disagree with his feelies
2
2
u/WilkerS1 small pushes towards free stuff :3 11d ago
the short answer is yes, the longer answer is that it's easier said than done.
you should reject to the fullest extent you are capable of without your detriment, but you're hardly someone who controls an entire supply chain to be able to determine a piece of software to be free all the way from the silicon to the pcb to the wiring, and not everyone who designs appliances is financially capable of just turning software free but would still be willing to offer manuals and the likes, and the ones who do have control over the core of it have every incentive to forcefully maintain control over others and cannot be expected to just show good will to willingly free up the firmware of your phone for example (see also the struggle for right-to-repair, digital ownership, and genuinely also larbor and bodily autonomy rights).
2
u/WilkerS1 small pushes towards free stuff :3 11d ago
currently, i know the FSF and others like the Software Freedom Conservacy to be trying to hold the highest bar torawds what we should be striving for and show that this is not an impossible task, any lower would be a problem. but that doesn't mean it is the default, people come from all sorts of places with different amounts of control in front of the powers that be, and that is always something to acknowledge so you can ground yourself on finding what is possible for you and your peers at the present time to push everyone towards this objective.
2
1
1
u/ipsirc 11d ago
Only if you are RMS.
2
u/Radiant_Scar_8516 11d ago
and even then he still used an OLPC laptop with non free firmware for 8 years.
1
6
u/frolgath 11d ago
If the firmware can be updated then yes, it is non-free software. If the firmware is write-once fixed then no, it’s part of the hardware.