[Discuss] EOMA68 Libre Hardware Standard and Libre Software project, currently crowd-funding (deadline expires 26th aug 2016)

[lkcl .]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The way I understand it, "free/libre" is a moral position while "open" is a
> pragmatic position.

 you're right.... in the same way that the (slightly misunderstood
benjamin franklin quote is misquoted but the misquote itself is great)
phrase "those who compromise on liberty to attain a little security
deserve neither liberty nor security" helps us to distinguish clearly
the difference between "moral" and "pragmatic".

 so by using the word "open" in the OHANDA description (and by
association the phrase "open source" and, as you rightly say, the
"pragmatic" approach), you're actually saying, "we're going to declare
that the four freedoms are valuable... but we're actually LYING to you
because we don't really believe in them, we believe instead in the
concept of 'open' ".

 it's a mixed message ... no, it's actually *worse* than declaring one
or the other, because you're promising to be - as you say - "moral"
but actually you're not!


> Things got started with "free" because those guys believed it was morally
> wrong for software to be non-free.

 correct... but i've come to understand that it's much more than that:
there's a genuine business model behind "libre" which i only really
fully appreciated when i heard how chris from thinkpenguin sells
hardware that *just works*.  it works (even with windows devices)
because he's researched it, and gone to the trouble (in the case of
the AR9271 chipset) of taking *TWO YEARS* to walk qualcomm through the
process of releasing the WIFI firmware under libre-compatible
licenses.


> So they used copyright to force
> downstream users to preserve the freedom of subsequent downstream users,
> ensuring that what was created "free/libre" had to stay "free/libre."
>
> A lot of people liked the principle, but couldn't integrate it into business
> because of the viral nature of copyleft. So "open" splintered off when
> people just wanted to collaborate on the best solutions to the problems,
> rather than take a moral stand.

 yeahhh i do get it - i understand where it comes from... it's just a
fundamental denial / lack of recognition of where the problem really
lies.  it's why i'm using the "hurts your wallet" angle instead.
"open" costs people money, long-term, basically.


> Personally, I'm in the "open" camp because I don't think of it as a moral
> issue. I just want to solve problems.

 sure.  so.  how's that working out?  are you solving the problems
associated with proprietary firmware not being compatible with drivers
after an upgrade?  are you solving the problems of proprietary drivers
not being updated to be compatible with recent OSes because the
manufacturers CAN'T BE BOTHERED so people have to THROW AWAY perfectly
peripherals?  and have you had customers ask yet, "can you sell me
something that doesn't have an Intel NSA backdoor in it please?"

 and how's it working out for qualcomm that it's been noticed that
NINE HUNDRED MILLION android devices are basically land-fill, now?
google "qualcomm security 900 million vulnerable devices" for details.

 the number of people who misunderstand the real benefits of "libre"
is immense.  like you they *genuinely* believe it is purely a "moral"
issue, that it's not really important to take a "moral" stand when it
comes to hardware, thus it's okay for there to be DRM at the hardware
level with RSA key-signing on bootloaders...

 have you seen the consequences of the fuckups made by the FCC
recently?  they *IGNORED* everybody telling them, "for god's sake
don't require DRM locking on the firmware, corporations won't do that
they'll just DRM-lock the entire OS" and the FCC went, "nahh naah,
they won't do that, don't talk bollocks, ya jumped up little 'moral'
fuckwits".

 and guess what happened?  TP-Link and other companies instantly
started DRM-locking the entire OS.  you buy a recent TP-Link router
you *CANNOT* reflash it.


 now the FCC didn't like that, but they're making the situation *even
worse* by requiring that the WIFI firmware be DRM-locked... because by
doing that there's *NO* chance you'll be able to get libre WIFI
firmware (see DRM-locking below).

 and you know what practical consequences that has?  it means you can
kiss 802.11ac Mesh Networking goodbye.  why?  because the fuckwit WIFI
manufacturers sell what *THEY* want to sell, they're moving things
from the OS level into the WIFI chipset level to do Mesh Networking
(where they can DRM lock it, just like the FCC has DEMANDED), and they
can't be BOTHERED to implement Mesh Networking on your behalf... so
you're fucked.

 all the security stuff that you want to add on top of 802.11n and
802.11ac?  flat-out it.



> There are a lot of ways in which hardware is more compatible with "open"
> than "free/libre." For example, if you want to test some software, you can
> just download it and run it. If you want to test some hardware, you have to
> build it or have it shipped to you. So hardware is always going to need
> money exchanging hands; it can't be practically separated from business.
> Another example is that copyright applies to software, but it doesn't apply
> to hardware. There just isn't a good legal mechanism for enforcing the
> creator's intentions when a piece of hardware is out in the world. So you
> can't take someone to court to make them obey your moral principles.

 too complex for me to go into / don't have any concise examples to
cite / other.  sorry!


> The example you've cited a couple times, of DRM locking, even seems like
> it's really a software thing, not a hardware thing.

 it's hardware that's used in an insidious and subversive way to lock
the software, preventing and prohibiting people from achieving the
four freedoms in an absolutely fundamental way that is impossible if
it were just software.

 if it were just software, there would at least be a chance to do
reverse-engineeering, thus (aside from pissing everybody off) you can
achieve the four freedoms after some considerable time and effort.
but if it's DRM-locked hardware, even carrying out the
reverse-engineering is a total waste of time.

 there's a *massive* difference.

l.