130
Nonfree software found in GNU Boot releases again, many distros affected. (savannah.gnu.org)
submitted 21 hours ago by petsoi@discuss.tchncs.de to c/linux@lemmy.ml
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe@lemmy.world 39 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Don't worry, the whole thing is that GNU boot contains proprietary firmware for testing coreboot. The only distros affected are GNU Boot and Canoe Boot. Upstream coreboot has that testing firmware there intentionally so it's silly to call it "affected".

FSF is doing great stuff for the world but I think FOSS is kinda held back by being led by nerds that are "a bit different". (edit: I mean that with respect. These nerds are surely nice people and great coders but imo not great philosophical leaders)

[-] pglpm@lemmy.ca 17 points 19 hours ago

Appreciated if someone can explain what is the problem and its context in simple terms 🙏

I understand the GNU "framework" is built on free, open source software. So I don't understand how one can "discover" that there were pieces of non-free software there... They were put there by mistake?

[-] anamethatisnt@lemmy.world 17 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

They were put there for some testing and from their mailing list it sounds like it will be removed as it's unnecessary.

Apologies that this has caused problems for you.
This is just some old test data used to confirm that the parser in the command line utility works, and I don't think anyone thought about the redistribution legality implications of putting those images into the repo.
I agree that it's not a good situation and we should try to fix it.

There is no real reason for these binaries to be in those test fixtures — the point of the tests is just to verify parsing for vboot data structures, the actual contents of the file are not really relevant.

  • Julius Werner, member of the Advisory Group

https://mail.coreboot.org/hyperkitty/list/coreboot@coreboot.org/thread/6JI7KTJ3QVK6Q5BLNWREX2IBVZP7GCLP/

edit: "there is a general advisory committee made up of any individuals who wish to help out and discuss their thoughts with the leadership board. This is done at bi-weekly meetings, which all members of the project are invited to attend and contribute."
https://coreboot.org/leadership.html

[-] pglpm@lemmy.ca 5 points 13 hours ago

Cheers! Got a bit clearer now.

[-] Mwa@lemm.ee 1 points 11 hours ago

is this releated to grub?

[-] rtxn@lemmy.world 11 points 20 hours ago

Leah Rowe probably hasn't stopped laughing since this was published.

[-] nanook@friendica.eskimo.com -3 points 18 hours ago

Falls under the heading of ask me if I give a flying fuck. Sorry, I just can't identify with Stallman's rather awkward and impractical form of puritanism.

[-] Markaos@lemmy.one 28 points 17 hours ago

While I agree with your view (at least when it comes to firmware, especially given that hardware that doesn't require a firmware upload on boot generally just has the very same proprietary firmware on a built-in memory, so the only difference is that you don't get to even touch the software running on it), the point of this project is to remove non-libre components from coreboot/libreboot.

It doesn't differentiate itself from upstream in any other way, so if it fails to do the one thing it was made to do, then that's in fact a newsworthy fact.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago

It's aesthetically nice. Just when you don't make compromises, the practical cases will be few.

That's true even for using OpenBSD as a daily driver. No Stallman there (and they don't like him), but some principles have to be followed. Thus no Wine and no Linux emulation.

Would like to try using Guix for a long time some day, but it would be an interruption.

[-] anamethatisnt@lemmy.world 6 points 18 hours ago

In this case the binaries with the nonfree software seem be completely unnecessary, so why not keep it free?

https://mail.coreboot.org/hyperkitty/list/coreboot@coreboot.org/thread/6JI7KTJ3QVK6Q5BLNWREX2IBVZP7GCLP/

[-] LeFantome@programming.dev 1 points 2 hours ago

The political downvoting in this thread is a turn off for me. However, I completely agree with your statement / question.

[-] nanook@friendica.eskimo.com 1 points 2 hours ago

@LeFantome @anamethatisnt If people disagree with me and think authors shouldn't be able to specify how their work is used, I'm okay with that. We can agree to disagree.

[-] nanook@friendica.eskimo.com 1 points 17 hours ago

@anamethatisnt It's only unnecessary if you don't happen to own hardware that requires the non-free drivers.

[-] anamethatisnt@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Not in this case, the tests they're running doesn't need the vendor blobs in those testing folders.

Generally I agree with Debians changes to include nonfree firmware in the default images and making the "completely free" images the non-default version. I do think maintaining and having completely free distro versions to be a good thing though.

The whole situation is really unnecessary because none of the things that we're testing really requires those vendor blobs.
We're just testing the basic vboot and CBFS structures in those images, the file contents are not really relevant as long as they match the signatures.
So I think the easiest option here is to just remove the offending CBFS files from those images / overwrite the offending FMAP sections with zeroes.

https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/374385985

[-] nanook@friendica.eskimo.com -1 points 17 hours ago

@anamethatisnt What are the real world implications of "non-free" software? I've never paid a cent for it, should I?

[-] anamethatisnt@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

That question is kind a rabbit hole and not one I feel confident in going down.

Free as in freedom, not as in free beer.
The real world implications of non-free software is that other's can't run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.

I like having computing alternatives that are free from corporate control and believe that the hardliners like FSF helps us keep those alternatives alive. I realise that those alternatives are in many ways worse and that a lot of hardware today requires the vendor blobs to work. When/If corporations push their control even further I want those alternatives to be around.

And you really should pay for winrar. ;-)

[-] nanook@friendica.eskimo.com -1 points 16 hours ago

@anamethatisnt Yea, so you think the authors are not entitled to specify how their software is used? This is where I have a major disconnect with Richard Stallman.

[-] anamethatisnt@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago

I believe that both proprietary non-free systems and fully free systems can exist and that having licensing alternatives like GPL, LGPL and MIT gives the developer options for specifying how their software is to be used.

The movement towards using MIT or LGPL instead of the full GPL for libraries thus allowing the developers using the libraries the freedom to choose what license their software should use is one I can stand behind.

If someone builds a FLOSS turbotax competitor and don't want anyone to use their hard work and fork it into a commercial and proprietary product then I believe there should be a license for that.
If they rather earn money from it and copyrights their code instead that is also their prerogative.
The middle-ground where they create a free turbotax competitor with a license that allows others to fork it into a proprietary software should also be possible - although I personally don't see the allure.

this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
130 points (99.2% liked)

Linux

47782 readers
931 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz