Difference between revisions of "When should firmware be free"
m (→Articles and statements by or about FSF: reformatting) |
(==RMS on Android== From: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html <blockquote> The phone network firmware comes preinstalled. If all it did was sit there and run, we could regard) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | {{not fsf}} | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
==Goals of this page== | ==Goals of this page== | ||
| Line 8: | Line 6: | ||
* Establish FSF's current policy | * Establish FSF's current policy | ||
* Make suggestions, if necessary, for how FSF's policy could be improved, clarified, or better explained | * Make suggestions, if necessary, for how FSF's policy could be improved, clarified, or better explained | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==RMS on Android== | ||
| + | |||
| + | From: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html | ||
| + | |||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | The phone network firmware comes preinstalled. If all it did was sit there and run, we could regard it as equivalent to a circuit. When we insist that the software in a computing device must be free, we can overlook preinstalled firmware that will never be upgraded, because it makes no difference to the user that it's a program rather than a circuit.<br /> | ||
| + | <br /> | ||
| + | Unfortunately, in this case it would be a malicious circuit. Malicious features are unacceptable no matter how they are implemented.<br /> | ||
| + | <br /> | ||
| + | On most Android phones, this firmware has so much control that it could turn the product into a listening device. On some, it controls the microphone. On some, it can take full control of the main computer, through shared memory, and can thus override or replace whatever free software you have installed. With some models it is possible to exercise remote control of this firmware, and thus of the phone's computer, through the phone radio network. The point of free software is that we have control of our computing, and this doesn't qualify. While any computing system might HAVE bugs, these devices might BE bugs. (Craig Murray, in Murder in Samarkand, relates his involvement in an intelligence operation that remotely converted an unsuspecting target's non-Android portable phone into a listening device.)<br /> | ||
| + | <br /> | ||
| + | In any case, the phone network firmware in an Android device is not equivalent to a circuit, because the hardware allows installation of new versions and this is actually done. Since it is proprietary firmware, in practice only the manufacturer can make new versions—users can't.<br /> | ||
| + | <br /> | ||
| + | Putting these points together, we can tolerate nonfree phone network firmware provided new versions of it won't be loaded, it can't take control of the main computer, and it can only communicate when and as the free operating system chooses to let it communicate. In other words, it has to be equivalent to circuitry, and that circuitry must not be malicious. There is no obstacle to building an Android phone which has these characteristics, but we don't know of any. | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
==Articles and statements by ''or about'' FSF== | ==Articles and statements by ''or about'' FSF== | ||
Revision as of 20:14, 9 June 2012
Goals of this page
- Analyse the problem
- Discuss possible policies
- Establish FSF's current policy
- Make suggestions, if necessary, for how FSF's policy could be improved, clarified, or better explained
RMS on Android
From: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html
The phone network firmware comes preinstalled. If all it did was sit there and run, we could regard it as equivalent to a circuit. When we insist that the software in a computing device must be free, we can overlook preinstalled firmware that will never be upgraded, because it makes no difference to the user that it's a program rather than a circuit.
Unfortunately, in this case it would be a malicious circuit. Malicious features are unacceptable no matter how they are implemented.
On most Android phones, this firmware has so much control that it could turn the product into a listening device. On some, it controls the microphone. On some, it can take full control of the main computer, through shared memory, and can thus override or replace whatever free software you have installed. With some models it is possible to exercise remote control of this firmware, and thus of the phone's computer, through the phone radio network. The point of free software is that we have control of our computing, and this doesn't qualify. While any computing system might HAVE bugs, these devices might BE bugs. (Craig Murray, in Murder in Samarkand, relates his involvement in an intelligence operation that remotely converted an unsuspecting target's non-Android portable phone into a listening device.)
In any case, the phone network firmware in an Android device is not equivalent to a circuit, because the hardware allows installation of new versions and this is actually done. Since it is proprietary firmware, in practice only the manufacturer can make new versions—users can't.
Putting these points together, we can tolerate nonfree phone network firmware provided new versions of it won't be loaded, it can't take control of the main computer, and it can only communicate when and as the free operating system chooses to let it communicate. In other words, it has to be equivalent to circuitry, and that circuitry must not be malicious. There is no obstacle to building an Android phone which has these characteristics, but we don't know of any.
Articles and statements by or about FSF
- Is Android really free software?, 19 Sep 2011, Richard Stallman, Guardian
- Help fix the wireless firmware problem on the Openmoko GTA04, 26 Sep 2011, Matt Lee (FSF)
- Development of a prototype for injecting immutable firmware into a WLAN chip, 19 Sep 2011, Nikolaus Schaller, GTA04 project
- Papering over a binary blob, 28 Sep 2011, Jonathan Corbet, LWN.net
- Binary firmware and your freedom, 14 Jun 2011, Patrick Van Oosterwijck, Distrowatch
- Campaign for Free BIOS, 17 Feb 2010, Peter Brown (FSF)
