Is Linux not free software itself? I thought propietary stuff was added downstream.

Am I getting something wrong?

  • Alex@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    26 days ago

    It really depends how you see the firmware boundary. You can either treat it as a set of magic numbers you load onto the hardware so it works or see it as an intrinsically programmable part of your system that you should be able to see the source code for or live without support for the device.

    • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      26 days ago

      Concrete examples of such firmware: NVIDIA cards and nouveau. All of the kernel code is GPL, but you still need the firmware, which must be signed by NVIDIA and thus can’t be modified at all. Or some WiFi chip firmware.

      Technically those could be permanently burned into a ROM chip on the device itself, but for convenience the vendor ships the firmware with the driver and load it at runtime so it always matches what the driver expects and save on a ROM chip. But now that means the driver is uploading a proprietary blob and being unable to provide your own is an artificial limitation imposed by the hardware. Sometimes such firmware artificially limits what the hardware can do, so the magic numbers can absolutely infringe on your freedom. Such firmware can also be the programming for an FPGA so it can get really complicated really fast. There’s also a legal aspect to it: FCC regulations on WiFi chips are typically enforced in firmware, so the manufacturer isn’t even allowed to let you modify it, but that’s also violating your right to tinker with your hardware and assume the liability. What if you’re not even in the US?

      Some people would rather only have fully libre systems, but for most people a libre driver is better than a fully proprietary driver which is better than no driver at all and having to run a completely proprietary OS.