A way to address that is to require that if the company does not provide software updates, it must release the source code and tooling to it’s customers under cc-0 license. For games that depends on server-side services to work, that should be provided as well.
But under capitalism, that will be an uphill battle.
Always
Won’t happen under capitalism. Which is just another reason capitalism needs to go.
I remember that RMS’s position is that if someone (!) can change it (eg there is an “update firmware” button), it is a computer and should run free software. If no one can ever change it, it is a circuit. I think that makes some sense.
Many microcontrollers can be set up for in circuit programming.
They might be intended for one time programming in the factory, but solder some wires on in the right place and supply the right signal and it can be reprogrammed.
Is that a circuit or a computer?
It doesn’t make any sense. If I make a box with a screen that runs linux (idk for ordering lunch in school canteen) and only update the OS by physically removing the hard drive and installing it from different computer, does that justify it being proprietary?
On the other end a circuit can be changed e.g. by tuning a potentiometer or straight up changing a component. That’s not any different than changing a value of a variable in the firmware. There is no actual difference in hardware and software, just different level of abstraction like C vs Python.
If it’s critical for operation of a device the company makes it’s money with.
Edit: free, but i meant open
One is to view free firmware as desirable but not necessary
I can’t make firmware but I hope the people who can make free (libre) firmware don’t give up, which is what that position sounds like.
Yep FSF’s bizarre anti software freedom stance does not make sense. Luckily the more sensible Right to Repair “schematics or die” is much more popular. So in the end it does not really matter what the FSF thinks and the damage done is minimal.
