[Freedombox-discuss] Intel Compute Stick
Jonas Smedegaard
dr at jones.dk
Wed Jan 14 14:36:59 UTC 2015
Quoting Walter van Holst (2015-01-14 14:07:56)
> On 2015-01-14 13:17, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>>> What is the take of the Freedom Box project on the boundary problem
>>> in open hardware? Especially the lower boundary? At what lower level
>>> would such a requirement stop being applied?
>>
>> Interesting question. Seems you are knowledgeable in that area
>> (which I am not) - what is your own opinion?
>
> My take on it is rather pragmatic: this project aims to enhance
> digital freedom for the masses, if my understanding is correct.
> Reaching the masses implies that you cannot restrict yourself to
> obscure pieces of hardware, but at least temporarily must include
> hardware that is widely available if not already lying around in at
> least geeky households. Reaching the masses means that you have to go
> where they start to be.
>
> So it becomes more a question: how do we balance the importance of
> openness at the hardware level with the need to gain critical mass in
> adoption, now and in the foreseeable future. That means developing a
> few rules of thumb in the full knowledge that they have to be revised.
>
> For example:
>
> "We will not actively target platforms that require binary-only
> firmware blobs (which is a fairly objective lower boundary threshold),
> but we take exceptions to this rule for platforms that a) are widely
> available and b) have a clear and convincing roadmap for reducing if
> not eliminating those blobs or are otherwise likely to become more
> open in the foreseeable future."
>
> BTW, the Raspberry Pi would meet this threshold. The Banana Pi less so
> (unless you count the likelihood of strongarming them through their
> GPL-violations to be more open as meeting the requirements), but the
> UDOO and the Parallella probably would.
>
> "not actively targeting" meaning that contributions will be accepted,
> but by default will be treated as deprecated platforms.
>
> The above should be read as me thinking out loud on how you could
> define a lower boundary for hardware openness in light of the goals of
> the Freedom Box project. Also, my views on both the GPL and Free
> Software advocacy are sometimes considered as heresy. Caveat emptor.
Thanks for your input. Quite relevant!
What I propose *now* is to raise the bar at a _board_ being OSHW
compliant. That excludes both Raspberry Pi boards (even if future
boards from same vendor is likely to be OSHW compliant) and also Banana
Pi - but includes other Allwinner-based boards even if documentation of
the _chip_ is of substandard quality: Bar is at the _board_ being OSHW,
not the _components_ soldered onto the board.
What I propose *now* is to not raise the bar on components, beyond what
have already been done (requiring boot and normal operation without
loading _additional_ proprietary code - e.g. excluding Raspberry Pi due
to its need for binary blob to boot, but including boards with wifi
chips that require binary blobs as the wifi functionality is optional).
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20150114/17802438/attachment-0001.sig>
More information about the Freedombox-discuss
mailing list