The FSF has an unfortunate relationship with firmware, resulting in policies that made sense in the late 1980s, but actively harm users today, through recommending obsolescent equipment, requiring …
  • poVoq
    3•2 years ago

    I generally agree, however the Purism case (same with the PinePhone btw.) is not so much about RYF certification, but legal requirements for GSM modems. Thus as a result people are hacking the second CPU that is connected with the modem on the PinePhone, but PINE64 would not be allowed to sell phones with that hacked open firmware preinstalled.

    • @beansniffer@lemmy.ml
      3•2 years ago

      “I’m fine with entirely proprietary software and hardware on my computer as long as I get to run it on my computer and not just streaming my desktop to me over the internet where I have no control over it” -them in the future (probably)

      We need an organization like the fsf that has a hardline stance on free software because if we don’t, we will end up in a world where free software advocates will be saying things like the above paragraph. A world where no software freedom exists because we forgot to teach our own children why software freedom is important.

      But at the same time, I understand the sentiment the author has regarding the practical use of free software in the modern world. If someone could only be “truly free” if they ran outdated hardware, that would seal the tomb on the free software movement leading into the future. Free software advocates would be forced to be kept in the past with zero relevance going forward.

      The more organizations promoting free software like the Free Software Foundation and Software Freedom Conservancy the better off the world will be.