The article really mixes up "being free" and "having FSF validation".
While having FSF validation is indeed some kind of proof of due diligence, in the end what really matters is the trust that users place in the project itself in following their guidelines.
I do not have a particularly strong trust for the (modern) FSF, so their validation adds nothing, IMHO, in my trust in Purism.
In fact, having FSF validation doesn't prove anything but rather may be detrimental, because the FSF validation has built-in backdoors, and Purism took full advantage of them - reducing user freedom in the process.
Thread on how the Librem 5 is explicitly designed to hide proprietary blobs from the user in order to gain RYF certification (where having those blobs readily accessible would be strictly an improvement in freedom, as it would mean you are free to verify their contents, audit them, and potentially replace them with a free version if you develop one):
Make no mistake, Purism has gone quite far down the freedom marketing religion path laid down by the FSF. They no longer care whether you're free or not, they care that you believe you're free.
If you have blobs, stick them in /lib/firmware. Don't go hiding them in separate flash chips that I can't audit or rewrite just so you can slap the FSF's meaningless "the main CPU didn't touch any blobs (except the bootrom but we don't talk about that) so it doesn't have the digital cooties" rubber stamp on your device.
"We want users to be able to upgrade and control the software at as many levels as possible. If and when free software becomes available for use on a certain secondary processor, we will expect certified products to adopt it within a reasonable period of time. This can be done in the next model of the product, if there is a new model within a reasonable period of time. If this is not done, we will eventually withdraw the certification."
Do they actually enforce that, if the device can either have a proprietary blob that is user-updateable, or a proprietary blob that is not user-updateable, it must use the design where the proprietary blob is user-updateable? Because other claims by the FSF (namely, that non-updateable blobs can be treated as part of the hardware) directly contradict that.
> The SPI flash will be read only so the firmware blobs can’t be modified without the user knowing.
The post you link to is full of wishy-washy fluff, but does not answer the direct question that the user posed in the OP, about the DDR timing code flash being writable.
I don't see any "wishy-washy fluff". It states quite clearly:
we do not institute any kind of write-lock or burnt fuses that would prevent the owner of the hardware from reflashing it with whatever firmware (new or otherwise) they choose.
In other words, you can modify the firmware on the Wi-Fi card or modem.
Concerning the RAM, I do not see any problem with that, since there is no proprietary code running after the booting. As FSF says, it can simply be considered as a part of "hardware" which is necessary for the start of the system.
> Methods to flash the firmware on the Librem 5 are outside of my area of expertise.
That's CSO code for "I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I'm just giving you a canned response about our principles with no technical details and hoping you don't pry further and prove me wrong".
He never explicitly addressed the RAM blob. If he knew it was flashable he would've outright said it to answer the question. But he did not.
> Concerning the RAM, I do not see any problem with that, since there is no proprietary code running after the booting. As FSF says, it can simply be considered as a part of "hardware" which is necessary for the start of the system.
Incorrect. The code is loaded in the DDR PHY. It then runs continuously. It is required for normal operation. This is because LPDDR requires continuous runtime re-training at its higher performance modes. What only runs on boot is the (dumb as hell) code they wrote to run on the Cortex-M4 as a workaround, because the FSF's ridiculous requirements forbid you not just from running proprietary code on the main CPU, but from touching proprietary code on the main CPU.
So Purism built code that runs on cpu A to run code they built that runs on cpu B to load a blob from external read-only memory C into cpu D, just so they could claim cpu A never got digital cooties from touching the blob.
Please appreciate the stupidity of this entire ordeal.
Means it can't be modified without the user knowing, and it also can't be modified with the user knowing.
Unless the Librem 5 literally has a DIP switch for "enable flashing RAM code", read only means read only, period. It means the write protect pin is tied to protected, or a set-only protect bit in the SPI flash config was flipped.
>Please appreciate the stupidity of this entire ordeal.
I have had a conversation with you about this before and I still don't see what the issue here is. Best case, that seems it might be covered under the secondary processor exception, worse case, the FSF would not endorse it. Since you have the ability to reverse engineer this and fix the situation once and for all, why not do it? What is the real problem here? If you are trying to get Purism to pay you for this work, I would suggest contacting them about that privately.
Purism has said that it will be providing proprietary firmware updates, and it already has instructions how to update the firmware for the RS9116 WiFi/BT on its web site.
Because Purism selected components for the Librem 5 that will be manufactured for many years, it is more likely to get firmware updates than most smartphones. Because the drivers are all FOSS, they can be updated by the community, and some cases the manufacturer helps maintain the mainline Linux drivers, so timely updates are very likely. For example, NXP promises to sell its i.MX 8M Quad processor until at least Jan. 2028 and it helps maintain the mainline Linux driver. Likewise, Redpine Signals helps maintain the mainline driver for the RS9116 WiFi/BT and likely to keep manufacturing the chip for at least the next 5 years.
In contrast, the SoC used in a typical smartphone is only manufactured for 1-2 years and it typically only gets 2-3 years of support from the manufacturer, so the Librem 5 is more likely proprietary firmware updates than most smartphones.
As for the question of whether it is better to store the proprietary firmware in the /lib/firmware directory or in the component or in Flash chips on the motherboard, there are advantages and disadvantages, so you have to weight what is important. When firmware is stored and loaded from the /lib/firmware directory, it is easier to update and the user will automatically get the latest firmware when upgrading the software on the device. In contrast, the user has do a separate procedure to upgrade the firmware and many users are unlikely to do it, so any potential security holes in the firmware are less likely to be closed with updates. However, a lot of this depends on what Purism does in the future to push firmware updates, so we shouldn't automatically assume that the Librem 5 will be insecure. The benefit of not storing the firmware in /lib/firmware is because it makes the user more conscious of the proprietary blobs on the device, and the user can make a deliberate choice whether to install firmware updates or not, after reading the description of each update. Also, it is harder for the firmware to be hacked by a bad actor when it is stored in the component or a separate Flash chip, because it requires a separate procedure to flash the firmware, so it can be argued that it is more secure. Another benefit is that system updates can be offered without including any proprietary files, so there are no restrictions on how they are distributed and installed.
In terms of promoting software freedom, I don't know of any cellular modems or any GNSS with FOSS firmware. There were only two WiFi/BT model series whose firmware was reverse engineered by the community but they never got past the experimental state and are now hopelessly outdated since they were 802.11b/g devices. There are some ath9k 802.11n models that required no firmware, but they have poor range and are energy inefficient and require proprietary firmware for the Bluetooth.
In other words, there is no realistic way to make a modern computing device without proprietary firmware, and the only hope is to pressure the manufacturers to release code or documentation for its firmware, but the modern patent situation with wireless communications makes that extremely unlikely to happen. However, the FSF's insistence on trying to separate the proprietary firmware and not let it be executed on the main CPU cores does draw public attention to the problem and show the component manufacturers that there is public demand for free firmware. When companies like Purism go through extreme steps to avoid executing DDR timing code on the main CPU cores, by adding a separate SPI Flash chip to the board to hold the blob and not using the Cortex-M4 core for any other purpose but to execute that blob, it sends a message to NXP that its customers really hate that proprietary blob and it should be eliminated. In contrast, a company that stick that blob in the main Linux file system tells NXP that its customers don't care about that blob and there is no pressure for NXP to eliminate it in future chips. The value of buying RYF products like the Librem 5, RaptorCS computers and Lulzbot is that it is creating a public statement that consumers care about not having proprietary blobs, and that the hardware industry should cater to that crowd. What Purism is doing value in promoting a public message and it is based on a long-term strategy to pressure the industry to free its firmware, whereas the people who criticize it have no strategy for ever achieving change. If they have an alternative strategy for how to free the firmware, I would love to hear it.
The more important point is that Purism selected components from hardware companies that are more willing to collaborate with the community and listen to Purism's requests, so there is more possibility of driving change up the supply chain. Purism paid Redpine Signals to modify its firmware so it could meet the RYF criteria and NXP engineers work with the community on the mainline Linux driver for the i.MX 8M, so it is possible to influence these component suppliers.
I'd say the FSF has a better reputation than most organisations in this space, and certainly a more established one than Purism does. Here in this thread there are a lot of people criticising them for being "too dogmatic" or for applying their rules too inflexibly, which IMO is proof that they take a firmly principled stance - which is exactly what's needed to validate something like this. A group that's willing to bend would soon end up being meaningless.
It's hard to answer this without potentially starting a flame war. I can see that some comments start to explode already. Still, let me try to explain my mistrust constructively.
Let me just start by saying that trust is a very personal feeling. We give trust to others based on criteria that are different. I completely understand that my points listed below are not relevant trust indicators for others.
That being said, I have 2 main mistrust issues with FSF:
1) Leadership
I had various occasions to interact with RSM over the years, in various contexts. I do not have a fond memory of those interactions.
- I remember someone which is very difficult to have a real conversation with. Very childish and binary in his view of the world. Prompt to not listen to arguments, talking louder than others, turning arguments into jokes, etc.
- I worked and know plenty of people who worked with him in various academic labs where he's been invited to give talks or work on subjects. The same complaints emerged all the time: he would grossly hit on female PhD students (just enough to make them uncomfortable), always tried to be hosted by someone and would not even shower there, very rarely participate in the big picture of why he was invited (e.g. He would lock himself in a room for 2 days straight to fix some esoteric emacs bug on an archaic platform, instead of just organizing seminars on free software and participate in discussions), he would act in very narcissistic ways (e.g. After proposing to go to a restaurant, he would then propose - and insist grossly - to pay the bill with his autograph on a printed copy of emacs source code). He would constantly rant on closed source computers and cell phones, but will gladly borrow anyone's phone to make international calls. I stop here because I just have too much random echos of his not-so-pleasant behavior.
Overall most of my personal interactions with RSM, as well as friend's recollections picture him as gross, childish, and narcissistic.
Now RSM himself is not the FSF as a whole, but I have a hard time trusting an organization that is so centered around a single individual which embodies traits that I do not appreciate.
2) The organization members
I did not have direct relation with other FSF members, but I have been contributor to projects where the FSF intervened (or tried to) in the governance.
Most of the time, the FSF members were never contributors to the projects. Yet they were the one trying to dictate the tone and direction, and act like they owned the projects based on their moral high ground.
This has led me to associate FSF members as some kind of a self proclaimed elite class of zealots, exempt of technical knowledge and actual contributions, but still willing to be heard.
This goes directly against my view of governance of open source projects, in which I believe the actual contributors should be ones to set the tone and direction of the project, because they are the one building it.
---
Again, all this is mainly personal feelings, so I don't want to look like I'm trying to influence others into distrusting FSF.
I understand that my interactions with RSM were in a certain context and that he maybe could be a very pleasant person in a different situation. And I also understand that my interactions with other FSF members were limited to the projects I contributed to, and there may be thousands of others where they were helping and constructive.
I'm a strong believer in "free software" as RMS defined it, and I give the man a lot of credit for getting the movement started. However, my few interactions with him were not pleasant, although I did have an interesting conversation with him once about promoting the environmental benefits of hardware running free software.
My main problem with the FSF has been more in terms of poor strategy in terms of how it engages with the software and hardware industry, rather than the philosophical vision.
A lot of FSF members I know are active contributors and are fairly reasonable, that said it definetly seems like the milage can vary wildly across the community. I have seen the type of behaviour you describe online but not much in person.
As for RMS, every interaction I have had with him.has been rough at best. I mean he is definetly right about the issues of software but him as a person can be very difficult at the best of times.
1. RSM is not part of modern FSF
2. Governance of free software projects has nothing to do with the competence of the FSF to define criteria for hardware that respects your freedom
I have no idea whether the internal process at the FSF changed or not, but the rules are the same for the FSF endorsing a distro and giving its Respects Your Freedom certification to a piece of hardware.
However, I raised a question about how to interpret the RYF criteria with regard to proprietary firmware updates, and I'm hoping the FSF will clarify the RFY criteria in a way that allows proprietary firmware updates for components that don't execute on the main CPU cores. See: https://forums.puri.sm/t/does-respects-your-freedom-certific...
I always forget which are the actual free software guys and which are the businesses that use linux guys... I think FSF are still the good ones right?
Though that thing about the FSFE office in Germany yesterday... Hopefully it's just a dude and the office he runs rather than the organization as a whole.
It is better to keep unrelated issues separate. The alleged FSFE issue you mention has little to do with trusting the FSF to accurately evaluate a free software stack.
If anything, slightly grumpy old school guys (again, alleged) are much better at rejecting corporate influence than the new people whose politics are literally bankrolled by corporations.
I'm not associated with FSF specifically, but as a card-carrying grumpy old-schooler, I object to your vaguely-defamatory characterization of them[0] as "slightly" and "alleged".
Edit: 0: RMS et al, that is, not the business linux people.
If the FSFE has problems, it's likely the FSF has them too, and vice versa. I don't want to get into this, really, but the cultural issues that allow these things to happen aren't one-offs; they're a known failure case of the specific, somewhat toxic brand of hacker culture that's been in Free Software circles since the early days.
(I think hacker culture in general is great, but, to use an analogy, there's a buggy implementation going 'round.)
By this, I mean: it's likely just a handful of people, max, being an immediate problem, but when the whole “looking past your friends' flaws” thing extends to when your friends are hurting other people, you're standing by while other people get hurt. Geek Social Fallacies[0] #2 and #3 don't combine well.
It's not just an FSFE problem. It's also not intrinsic to hacker culture in any way; it just tags along, causing problems.
I'm a libre software advocate but I see little reason why games should be libre. They're not tools - you don't use them to create things or to do your job. They're more akin to movies - compiled and packaged 'experiences' that are by design read-only. When you buy a DVD, you don't expect hundreds of hours of unedited footage to come along with the film so you can cut together your own version. The same is true of games.
> When you buy a DVD, you don't expect hundreds of hours of unedited footage to come along with the film so you can cut together your own version.
instead of accepting this as a fact of life, it should definitely be discussed and debated. What are good reasons for not having this right by default ?
For instance, Star Wars fans have made the despecialized edition from footage from the various movie - the result is pretty good. People remix music all the time; there have been plenty of initiatives over the years to provide songs as separated tracks to allow for more advanced remixes. etc etc...
> What are good reasons for not having this right by default ?
The good reason is that someone or some company paid for creating all those hundreds of hours of footage, so they get the first and final say over who gets to view and/or use it.
For cinema for instance a loooot of the money that serves into making movies come directly from taxpayer money - a figure I can find in the US is 1.5 billion $ of tax per year for instance in one occurence : https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/us/when-hollywood-comes-t... - and let's not get started about public tv which is pretty much mostly public funds.
I just went off on you on your use of of the term “rights” but when you bring up the government subsidies of movies here in the States—-I agree completely. In fact, as far as I’m concerned any government subsidy at all should render the entire production public domain. I’m not being facetious.
> For cinema for instance a loooot of the money that serves into making movies come directly from taxpayer money
I don't quite get your point either. Are you implying you would like ownership to be transfered from your tax money to whatever is created afterward with that money?
Would you feel entitled to ask for reports of how your neighbor spends his unemployment grant, because that's partly paid with your tax money?
Where do you draw the line between artist making money and for-profit corporation? Does a person have the right to limit the distribution of their own work?
But it is: The concept of "private property" is pervasive and deeply ingrained in modern Western civilization. You should have very, very good ethical and practical reasons for why this should be changed.
Let me try a different angle: If you put a two-minute video of an albatross gliding through the air on Youtube, should viewers of your video also have the right to see the other five hours of your holiday footage?
You're conflating copyright and privacy. What's being discussed above is really more akin to you "If you post an albatross video on Youtube, should someone else be able to do a remix" or "should someone else be allowed to repost it in their peertube instance".
No, this has nothing to do with privacy. The context was "When you buy a DVD, you don't expect hundreds of hours of unedited footage to come along with the film so you can cut together your own version." [1] jcelerier argued that consumers of a movie should have the right to receive all unpublished footage, I argued against that. In my analogy, the "buying a DVD" part is viewing the albatros-video, and the unedited, unpublished footage is the unedited, unpublished footage.
> should have the right to receive all unpublished footage [of the licensed work]
I think it should be read that way. You are not conflating copyright and privacy, you are conflating scopes of content production (the licensed work vs the whole work of the artist).
In your example, the topic of the licensed video is the albatross, not the artist holidays. That clarification being made, there's probably some truth in the privacy issue (you brought that example for a reason): one must make a distinction between works of fiction and other works : reporting, biography, and perhaps other kinds. Games are works of fiction, just like movies and music, while someone's holidays isn't. Maybe one may see that as another form of scoping.
> the licensed work vs the whole work of the artist
Ahh, I think I see the source of the confusion: in my analogy, the two-minute albatross video is cut and edited from the five-hour holiday footage. Sorry, that was my fault for being unclear.
Let's talk about intent. In the example of wanting the studio to give you all their unedited footage so you can make your own cut, all of that footage was taken with the intent to produce a movie with it (obviously all of it did not make the cut, but the intent was there).
For this holiday video, it was taken with the intent to -- privately -- document someone's holiday. Incidentally, the person taking the video happened to find a two-minute segment that they thought might be interesting to others, and they were comfortable giving away (because that portion of the video didn't intrude on their privacy).
The point I'm making here is that situations are different. Situations have nuance. You can't just presume equivalence and throw an argument in someone's face along the lines of "if you want someone to do X then you have to be comfortable with Y". Because no, you don't, and it's not logically inconsistent to hold that view.
(For the record, I don't think the studio should be required to give you all their unpolished, pre-cut footage. But I also don't think it's contradictory to imagine a world where that was the norm, but it was not the norm to expect people to post their entire holiday video when they just want to post a short segment.)
Addendum: In the analogy, the two-minute video of the albatross is cut and edited from the rest of the holiday footage, in the same way that a released movie is cut and edited from many hours of unreleased footage.
> That is not a reason or an answer to that question. [...] The question was why couldn't the material be packaged up in any other ways?
Re-read the original question by jcerelier, who explicitly asked why consumers don't have the right to view all the uncut footage: "What are good reasons for not having this right by default ?" [1]
> No one denies that whoever creates something has the right to dispose of it however they wish.
That's not correct. From another comment: "I'd rather have no notion of private ownership of ideas, knowledge and cultural goods at all." [2]
> What's the "good reason" it can't be? Does it kill any babies?
That's a really stupid argument to make. What's the "good reason" you don't send me 100 Euros? Would it kill any babies?
Ever read "unseen before footage", "exclusive archive content", "behind the scenes"? These come from content they didn't use and stashed away. If they just package it all with the initial product, they more or less kill the potential of exploiting their own IP later down the line.
because if there weren't fairly strict limitations on what you can do with the material, someone could reproduce the work and you'd be deprived of your profits, leaving no incentive to make stuff, which costs money.
No one asks for it, and it would be a technical challenge to distribute that much footage. If data speeds and storage densities keep going up it wouldn't surprise me if it eventually happens.
It depends on whether you think the creators of something do or do not have the right to sell or not sell it if they choose. If they do, then surely they can choose to include or not include any parts of their creation. Why should anyone have a right to cut footage the owner has chosen not to sell?
This is where there needs to be some careful thinking about terminology, since we don't have any right to other people's stuff by default.
The people who made the movie have all the rights to it and then they make some DVDs and sell them. They only sold what's on the DVDs. They didn't sell the other stuff, so people don't have a right to that stuff.
Now, that is not to say that the products couldn't be different in the future. It might turn out that movies which include a footage "parts kit" do better in the market place, so much more so that it becomes the normal way of doing business and is what is the ordinary and expected product at the ordinary price. But there's no reason to expect we have any particular rights to stuff other people did, or that they can't carefully parcel out the rights at prices that they set.
> What are good reasons for not having this right by default?
Getting tired of such free use of the word “right”. [EDIT: see bottom of this post!]
I will assume you’re not from the US, or are using hyperbole when you use the term “right”. Here in the USA our rights are clearly defined in the Constitution & Bill of Rights and they have a special quality: Our military and politicians literally swear not to defend King or country, but the Constitution, which represents a set of rights no human is allowed to abridge.
Rights are things we send our sons and daughters to die for in war.
Source available games (don't even need to be "Open Source" or "Free and Open Source") benefit greatly from modding, keeping games alive much longer and making them better even in the very short run.
I dabble in game design and the plan is making the game code open/libre (not the assets or trademarks though) after some time passes (years or maybe even decades, depending on the success) so others can learn from it, extend it and maybe even sell it is quite a draw for me.
> I dabble in game design and the plan is making the game code open/libre (not the assets or trademarks though) after some time passes (years or maybe even decades, depending on the success) so others can learn from it, extend it and maybe even sell it is quite a draw for me.
Some assets are code (procedural content, for example) though, how do you feel about those?
Also, one thing I've noticed is that for many ostensibly open source game code releases where assets are withheld, often no placeholder assets are provided either, without which the code sometimes can't be built, or if built can't be run or tested, which can present a significant barrier to the use or reuse of the code. All the more so when the original assets are in some idiosyncratic, non-standard, and possibly even undocumented, format.
I quite literally meant the code to be something like MIT/GPL licensed and art/sounds licensed something preventing commercial use, but all being available. This should make replacing sounds and art rather trivial.
> Some assets are code (procedural content, for example) though, how do you feel about those?
Code is code, if it produces output, it is owned by the user :) (assuming the "code" doesn't produce copyrighted content).
EDIT: Why do I treat code differently from assets? I have no clue tbh, but probably has to do with I can do code and thus can give it away, and can't do assets and thus can't.
> Code is code, if it produces output, it is owned by the user :) (assuming the "code" doesn't produce copyrighted content).
Right, I'm thinking specifically of code like shaders that do produce copyrighted content.
> EDIT: Why do I treat code differently from assets? I have no clue tbh, but probably has to do with I can do code and thus can give it away, and can't do assets and thus can't.
I'll not claim to speak for your reasons, but in general the motivation seems to be defense of things like trademark/trade dress or restrictive franchise licensing and adaptations to other media.
Eg. If Doom's assets were entirely free of any and all restrictions, anyone could have produced a Doom movie (including an inevitable Rule 34 version), not to mention sequelae.
>> Right, I'm thinking specifically of code like shaders that do produce copyrighted content.
> What do you mean by this exactly?
Sorry for the delayed reply.
Procedural content is generally produced by code that generates somewhat randomized 'assets' on the fly, whether it is a generated map of game locations, a generated planetary system, generated alien plant & creatures, buildings and cities, people and clothing, weapon/robot/vehicle designs, etc.
The generating code can be just code, or sometimes the code recombines existing assets. In the latter case omitting the assets is sufficient for the purposes of distinguishing assets from code (without the assets in the first place, there is nothing for the code to recombine).
But the former case, where assets are procedurally generated (materials, textures, models, bump maps, locations, etc.) from code alone, is the more interesting one.
It is fairly clear that art assets being generated on-demand likely embody a game-specific look and feel that is subject to the usual copyright, trademark and trade dress issues even though any specific image doesn't exist ahead of time.
So if there is code that generates (within constraints) randomized textures used in the game, how do you see that code and the resulting assets being licensed?
Perhaps the code itself is treated like all the other code in the game, but the settings data that steers the generating code toward a particular 'look' is separated out and treated as an asset?
Video games can largely be described as simulations, and ways to interact with it. This applies to both extensive simulations like dwarf fortress, to incredibly simple simulations like mega man. Combined with the fact they’re software, and thus generally available to be shared and modified without cost, they’re uniquely qualified to be a communal artistic medium — one in which others can modify, enhance, and extend the simulation capabilities.
There’s a reason games have (popular) modding cultures, where other mediums do not, and that same reason is why it is viable/reasonable for games to be libre.
That most games are treated and developed like movies, rather than like simulations, is a result of a fundamental misunderstanding by the game designers/developers.
Except that games are executing code on your general purpose computer. They are also connected to the internet these days.
When I buy a DVD, I can view it with my own software or on a dedicated device that is not a general purpose computer or connected to the internet.
I suspect that most people who try to carve out an exception for games are just rationalizing. They prefer free software, but don't want to give up their games. Then they often poo-poo someone for not wanting to give up $OtherPropreitaryApp.
The idea that you couldn't hide some kind of code execution exploit in a dvd-playing software and that anyone ever audits their video decoding hardware-software chain in a rigorous manner is also a rationalization.
I see what you mean, but the existence of thriving mod communities proves otherwise. People do want to fiddle with games and make their own derivative works.
The days games where complete packaged single player experiences are long gone (unless you're Nintendo). Games are tools: kids see each other in a game of Fortnite and visit concerts together. That makes Fortnite a communication/messenger tool and a browser too. Same for other community-based stuff like Roblox or Minecraft.
I would say the nethack dev team/community institution is a lot more valuable to me than any for-profit dev corporation dev team/ community institution, in a qualitatively different way. Company makes a nice game, cool, fine. Open-source community makes a game- oh, that's something that will last.
Having more fun and forks than any propietary game could dream.
Nethack/Slashem will be there forever.
A lot of games will be lost due to DRM like Starforce, where even running then under a VM and a crack is not granted gameplay.
OTOH, on libre games with propietary data, a lot of then are having lots of earnings with GOG and for example, ScummVM and open engines running unnoficially under Linux and OSX.
With ScummVM you can buy lots of adventures and now even some games like the ones from the Ultima saga up to VI are perfectly playable, (and integrating Exult for VII is not a big task).
In a near future, engines like Little Big Adventure will be playable under ScummVM.
GOG isn't perfect. Rights holders are still keeping plenty of niche games inaccessible to most. You can check the wishlist on GOG itself to see the latent demand.
All that said, the market compensation for fully FOSS games (assets+code) is a drop in the bucket compared to proprietary games.
I like that they have a vision for the ecosystem they are building, which includes gaming. If I understand correctly up-front payments for games should be possible? "Not paying for games" does not seem to be a selling point for PureOS.
Well, bad news, you are a minority. Phones have changed (destroyed) the landscape.
Did you know that King with their Candy Crush and other saga games almost double the operating income of Blizzard with all their legendary lineup? [1].
I think that since they are discussing the FSF, they just mean that the source of the games will be freely available and redistributable to people who are paying for the software. I don't think this is materially different from models like Humble Bundle, which feature vastly discounted prices for games.
Addendum: People looking at "free" and thinking "you don't have to pay for them!" makes me feel both old and pessimistic.
Is the "free as in speech, not as in beer" thing just a byline at this point? I remember reading about it and being pretty excited by the concept ~15 years ago, and it seems that it was pretty common in the software industry to understand the distinction; especially in the context of the FSF.
> without ads, without in-app purchases, and without tracking
I don't see where they are discouraging paying for games?
I do see them discouraging insidious tracking, advertisements masquerading as gameplay, and lottery systems designed to enrich the game developer at the expense of the actual gamer.
You can always sell those as an expansion pack. It reduces nickel and diming and encourages game developers to create high quality content that they can actually sell as a proper expansion, as opposed to little bits that the user has to pay while in the middle of their game, often in order to achieve something that may barely be possible without spending that in app money in addition to what they've already spent.
I am always so excited to see this game mentioned outside of its Reddit forum. I haven’t played it since 0.C, but I poured countless hours in and cherish many memories of hapless heroes and their ignoble deaths.
I wouldn't say that it doesn't matter. I think that propagating the values of free software is important, so I'm certainly supportive to a large degree.
But I think HN is the place to discuss nuances such as these:
Firstly, it's very unclear to me how Purism and the FSF reconcile the FSF criteria regarding 'Nonfree Firmware' with the blobs on the device. It's also unclear to me what the distinction is between this part of the criteria and the RYF certification.
Furthermore, the FSF's criteria regarding non-free firmware seems problematic, and it directly affects the Librem. Purism has been working with the FSF in pursuit of the RYF certification, and all of the responses I've found seem to be somewhat evasive of the fact that it may be the Librem will not get firmware updates, and that this is in accordance with RYF criteria.
> I find a lack of firmware updates to be possibly more of a concern
Why are you suggesting that one can't change the firmware? In your link, Purism CSO explicitly said you would be able to do it:
> I would expect that we would document the process in our Librem 5 developer docs at some point, when it’s relevant (such as when there’s an update to apply).
> It's also unclear to me what the distinction is between this part of the criteria and the RYF certification.
Ya, you are confused.
The PureOS endorsement is about a distro you can download and put on a computer (the distro doesn't include a bios or related firmware).
RYF is about all the software that comes on a computer/device, and the website you use to buy it, it's much more expansive.
So, Purism's computers are not RYF certified, but they come with a distro that is fully free (the disto does not include some nonfree firmware that comes on Purism's computers).
"Debian's Social Contract states the goal of making Debian entirely free software, and Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree software out of the official Debian system. However, Debian also maintains a repository of nonfree software."
So shipping free software isn't even enough for admission to the FSFs special club. Right. I've stopped listening to anything Stallman says.
I disagree. They have a moral value system, and they adhere to it. Just like (say) Roman Catholicism.
The FSF's point of view is that by providing repositories (which make installing a program a single command-line or a few GUI-clicks away) that's not functionally different from that being a part of the operating system. So providing repositories of nonfree software is functionally equivalent to including that software in the OS itself.
And to have software freedom, then all the software on a machine must respect the user's freedom; i.e. be free software.
More seriously, yeah there's a place for ideological organizations that broadcast their philosophy and won't budge when moneyed interests try to push them around. But such organizations also tend to be difficult to work with if you just want to get stuff done.
If they ship a complete and working OS that is free it should be considered free. This dogmatic all or nothing attitude is exactly why I ignore the FSF.
With your logic, I can create a small free software program, which automatically downloads some proprietary malware and you will call it all 'free as in freedom'.
I have a Purism Librem 13. It's sitting on a shelf somewhere because the battery won't charge anymore, the barrel connector is too loose. Purism tech support was no help at all. Another minor issue, the screws weren't held in by any kind of loctite and they just fall out after awhile if I don't remember to periodically tighten them. Like 4 of those screws are missing. And the rubber feet just had the worst adhesive on them, so they're gone.
Until the thing just plain stopped working on me all of a sudden, it was great.
While having FSF validation is indeed some kind of proof of due diligence, in the end what really matters is the trust that users place in the project itself in following their guidelines.
I do not have a particularly strong trust for the (modern) FSF, so their validation adds nothing, IMHO, in my trust in Purism.