libreboot
/
lbwww
1
0
Fork 0
Code Packages Projects Releases Activity

cleanup

hslick-master
Leah Rowe 2022-11-23 01:26:21 +00:00
parent 33dc596206
commit aec0f37e6b
12 changed files with 167 additions and 163 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
site/contact.md
View File

@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ IRC.
Webchat:
<https://web.libera.chat/#libreboot>
Libera is one of the largest IRC networks, used for Free Software projects.
Libera is one of the largest IRC networks, used for Libre Software projects.
Find more about them here: <https://libera.chat/>
If you wish to connect using your preferred client (such as weechat or irssi),
@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ News announcements: <https://twitter.com/libreboot/>
The founder and lead developer, Leah Rowe, is also on Twitter and Mastodon:
* <https://twitter.com/n4of7> (use nitter to avoid non-free JavaScript)
* <https://twitter.com/n4of7> (use nitter to avoid proprietary JavaScript)
* <https://mas.to/@libreleah>
Leah can also be contacted by her email address:

4
site/contrib.md
View File

@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ that, the solution was clear:
A project needed to exist, providing a fully free version of coreboot, without
any binary blobs. At the time (and this is still true today), coreboot was not
entirely free software and shipped with binary blobs by default. In particular,
entirely libre software and shipped with binary blobs by default. In particular,
CPU microcode updates were included by default, on all x86 machines. Working
with Joshua who reviewed my work, I created a fully free version of coreboot.
At first, it wasn't called Libreboot, and the work was purely intended for my
@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ and forth with Lisa around mid 2016, mostly raminit patches, to get the board
running at the FSF offices. This work ultimately lead to a most wonderful
achievement:
The <https://www.gnu.org/> and <https://www.fsf.org/> websites now run on
The FSF and GNU websites now run on
Librebooted ASUS KGPE-D16 based servers, on a fully free GNU+Linux distro. This
means that the FSF now has full software freedom for their hosting infrastructure.

9
site/docs/gnulinux/index.md
View File

@ -11,13 +11,8 @@ If you're using SeaBIOS, the boot process will work similarly to traditional
BIOS systems; refer to the SeaBIOS documentation
on <https://seabios.org/SeaBIOS>
GNU+Linux is the operating system of choice, for libreboot development. It is
highly recommended over any other operating system, precisely because it consists
of [Free Software](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) (free as in
freedom). There *are* other free operating systems, such as BSD, but most of
the software in a typical GNU+Linux system is also *copylefted*. To learn more
about the importance of copyleft, read this page on the GNU website:
<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.html>
Linux is generally assumed, especially for Libreboot development, but Libreboot
also works quite nicely with [BSD systems](../bsd/).
Useful links
============

6
site/docs/grub/index.md
View File

@ -6,13 +6,13 @@ x-toc-enable: true
TODO: this guide should be reviewed and updated. Some info might be out of
date.
[GNU GRUB](https://www.gnu.org/software/grub/) already has excellent
[GRUB](https://www.gnu.org/software/grub/) already has excellent
documentation, but there are aspects of libreboot that deserve special
treatment. libreboot provides the option to boot GNU GRUB directly, running on
bare metal (instead of using BIOS or UEFI services).
[The GNU+Linux section](../gnulinux/) also has libreboot-specific guides for
dealing with GNU+Linux distributions when using GNU GRUB directly, in this
[The Linux section](../gnulinux/) also has libreboot-specific guides for
dealing with Linux distributions when using GRUB directly, in this
setup. [A similar section exists for BSD operating systems](../bsd/)
GRUB keyboard layouts

4
site/docs/misc/index.md
View File

@ -106,9 +106,7 @@ from the serial console.
The following guide is for Ubuntu, but it should work in Debian and
Devuan, to enable a serial console using GeTTY:\
<https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SerialConsoleHowto> (we DO NOT
recommend Ubuntu, because it contains non-free software in the default
repos. Use Debian or Devuan)
<https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SerialConsoleHowto>
Note: part of the tutorial above requires changing your grub.cfg. Just
change the `linux` line to add instructions for enabling getty. See

2
site/faq.md
View File

@ -1022,7 +1022,7 @@ Where can I learn more about electronics
* [ElectroBOOM](https://vid.puffyan.us/channel/UCJ0-OtVpF0wOKEqT2Z1HEtA)
* [Jeri Ellsworth](https://vid.puffyan.us/user/jeriellsworth/playlists)
* Boardview files can be open with [OpenBoardview](https://github.com/OpenBoardView/OpenBoardView),
which is free software under MIT license.
which is libre software under MIT license.
Use of `yt-dlp` (an enhanced fork of `youtube-dl`) is recommended for links
to `youtube.com`. See: <https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp>

32
site/git.md
View File

@ -133,21 +133,35 @@ should be fairly anonymous. Use
and [git show](https://git-scm.com/docs/git-show) to confirm that before you
push changes to a public Git repository.
Licenses
Licenses (for contributors)
--------
We require all patches to be submitted under a free license:
<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html>.
- GNU General Public License v3 is highly recommended
- For documentation, we require GNU Free Documentation License v1.3 or higher
Make sure to freely license your work, under a libre license. Libreboot no
longer sets arbitrary restrictions on what licenses are accepted, and many
licenses out there already exist. We will audit your contribution and tell
you if there are problems with it (e.g. no license).
*Always* declare a license on your work! Not declaring a license means that
the default, restrictive copyright laws apply, which would make your work
non-free.
proprietary, subject to all of the same restrictions.
GNU+Linux is generally recommended as the OS of choice, for libreboot
development. However, BSD operating systems also boot on libreboot machines.
The MIT license is a good one to start with, and it is the preferred license
for all new works in Libreboot, but we're not picky. Libreboot has historically
used GNU licensing such as GPL; much of that remains, and is likely to remain.
It's your work; obviously, if you're deriving from an existing work,
it may make sense to use the same license on your contribution, for license
compatibility.
You can find common examples of licenses
[here](https://opensource.org/licenses).
If you *are* deriving from an existing work, it's important that your license
(for your contribution) be compatible with the licensing of the work from which
yours was derived. The MIT license is good because it's widely compatible
with many other licenses, and permits many freedoms (such as the freedom to
sublicense) that other licenses do not:
<https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>
Send patches
------------

21
site/index.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ x-toc-enable: true
...
The `libreboot` project provides
[freedom-respecting](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) *boot
[libre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source) *boot
firmware* that initializes the hardware (e.g. memory controller, CPU,
peripherals) on [specific Intel/AMD x86 and ARM targets](docs/hardware/), which
then starts a bootloader for your operating system. [GNU+Linux](docs/gnulinux/)
@ -22,22 +22,21 @@ can be completed as soon as possible.**
Why should you use *libreboot*?
----------------------------
Libreboot gives you freedoms that you otherwise can't get with most other
boot firmware. It's extremely powerful and configurable for many use cases.
You have rights. The right to privacy, freedom of thought, freedom of speech
and the right to read. [Free
software](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) gives you these rights.
and the right to read. In this context, Libreboot gives you these rights.
Your freedom matters.
[Right to repair](https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=Npd_xDuNi9k) matters.
Many people use [proprietary](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html)
boot firmware, even if they use [GNU+Linux](https://www.gnu.org/distros/).
Non-free firmware often [contains](faq.html#intel) [backdoors](faq.html#amd),
Many people use proprietary (non-libre)
boot firmware, even if they use [a libre OS](https://www.openbsd.org/).
Proprietary firmware often [contains](faq.html#intel) [backdoors](faq.html#amd),
and can be buggy. The libreboot project was founded in in December 2013, with the
express purpose of making Free Software accessible for non-technical users at
the firmware level. It's true that `libreboot` can be called Open Source, [but you
should call it Free
Software](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html).
express purpose of making coreboot firmware accessible for non-technical users.
The `libreboot` project uses [coreboot](https://www.coreboot.org/) for [hardware
initialization](https://doc.coreboot.org/getting_started/architecture.html).
initialisation](https://doc.coreboot.org/getting_started/architecture.html).
Coreboot is notoriously difficult to install for most non-technical users; it
handles only basic initialization and jumps to a separate
[payload](https://doc.coreboot.org/payloads.html) program (e.g.

4
site/license.md
View File

@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ x-toc-enable: true
Unless otherwise stated, every page and image (e.g. JPG/PNG files) on
libreboot.org or in the repository that it is built on, is released under the
terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, either version 1.3 or (at your
option) any newer version as published by the [Free Software
Foundation](https://www.fsf.org/), with no Invariant Sections, no Front Cover
option) any newer version as published by the Free Software
Foundation, with no Invariant Sections, no Front Cover
Texts and no Back Cover
Texts.

4
site/news/libreboot20210522.md
View File

@ -320,8 +320,8 @@ Anyway, Libreboot 20160907 used GRUB at git commit ID
This new Libreboot releases used GRUB c0e647eb0e2bd09315612446cb4d90f7f75cb44c
from May 10th, 2021.
Download GNU GRUB from the Git repository shown on
<https://www.gnu.org/software/grub/> and check every commit since then.
Download GNU GRUB from the upstream repository and check every commit
since then.
GM45/X4X now set 352MiB VRAM by default
=======================================

113
site/news/policy.md
View File

@ -11,7 +11,12 @@ from the osboot one.**
Libreboot's policy is to provide as much software freedom as possible to each
user, on each and every bit of hardware supported, and to *support as much
hardware from coreboot as is feasible*. The *goal* of Libreboot is
hardware from coreboot as is feasible*; what this means is that you should
have the potential to study, modify and *share* all source code, documentation
or other such resources that make Libreboot what it is. Put simply, you should
have *control* of your own computing.
The *goal* of Libreboot is
to do exactly this, and help as many people as possible by automating the
configuration, compilation and installation of *coreboot* for *non-technical*
users, easing it further for the average user by providing user-friendly
@ -36,6 +41,13 @@ Most critical of these are:
* HDD/SSD firmware
* Intel Management Engine / AMD PSP firmware
What is a binary blob?
----------------------
A binary blob, in this context, is any executable for which no source code
exists, that you cannot study and modify in a reasonable manner. By definition,
all such blobs are *proprietary* in nature, and should be avoided if possible.
Specific binary blobs are also problematic, on most coreboot systems, but they
differ per machine. Read more on the FAQ, and on this page, for how we deal
with binary blobs in the Libreboot project.
@ -61,23 +73,23 @@ nature of this is what you're about to read.
The libreboot project has the following policy:
* If a blob *can* be avoided, it should be avoided. For example, if VGA ROM
initialization otherwise does a better job but coreboot has *free* init code
initialization otherwise does a better job but coreboot has *libre* init code
for a given graphics device, that code should be used in libreboot, when
building a ROM image. Similarly, if *memory controller initialization* is
possible with a binary blob *or* free code in coreboot, the *free* code
possible with a binary blob *or* libre code in coreboot, the *libre* code
should be used in ROMs built by `lbmk`, and the *blob* for raminit should
not be used; however, if no free init code is available for said raminit,
not be used; however, if no libre init code is available for said raminit,
it is permitted and lbmk will use the *blob*.
* Some nuance is to be observed: on some laptop or desktop configurations, it's
common that there will be *two* graphics devices (for example, an nvidia and
an intel chip, using nvidia optimus technology, on a laptop). It may be that
one of them has free init code in coreboot, but the other one does not. It's
one of them has libre init code in coreboot, but the other one does not. It's
perfectly acceptable, and desirable, for libreboot to support both devices,
and accomodate the required binary blob on the one that lacks native
initialization.
* An exception is made for CPU microcode updates: they are permitted, and in
fact *required* as per libreboot policy. These updates fix CPU bugs, including
security bugs, and since the CPU already has non-free microcode burned into
security bugs, and since the CPU already has non-libre microcode burned into
ROM anyway, the only choice is either *x86* or *broken x86*. Thus, libreboot
will only allow coreboot mainboard configurations where microcode updates
are *enabled*, if available for the CPU on that mainboard.
@ -94,8 +106,8 @@ The libreboot project has the following policy:
a configuration for their hardware.
Generally speaking, common sense is applied. For example, an exception to the
minimalization might be if *blob* raminit and *free* raminit are available, but
the *free* one is so broken so as to be unusable. In that situation, the blob
minimalization might be if *blob* raminit and *libre* raminit are available, but
the *libre* one is so broken so as to be unusable. In that situation, the blob
one should be used instead, because otherwise the user might switch back to an
otherwise fully proprietary system, instead of using coreboot (via libreboot).
@ -121,9 +133,9 @@ Configuration
The principles above should apply to *default* configurations. However, libreboot
is to be *configurable*, allowing the user to do whatever they like.
It's natural that the user may want to create a setup that is *less* free than
It's natural that the user may want to create a setup that is *less* libre than
the default one in libreboot. This is perfectly acceptable; freedom is superior,
and should be encouraged, but the user's freedom to choose should also be
and should be encouraged, but the user's *freedom to choose* should also be
respected, and accomodated.
In other words, do not lecture the user. Just try to help them with their
@ -136,19 +148,20 @@ FREEDOM CATALOG
A *blob status* page should also be made available, educating people about the
status of binary blobs on each machine supported by `lbmk`.
It is desirable to see a world where all hardware and software is free.
Hardware!?
It is desirable to see a world where all hardware and software is libre, under
the same ideology as the Libreboot project. Hardware!?
Yes, hardware. RISC-V is a great example of a modern attempt at free hardware.
It is a free ISA for the manufacture of a microprocessor. Many real-world
Yes, hardware. RISC-V is a great example of a modern attempt at libre hardware,
often called *Open Source Hardware*.
It is a an ISA for the manufacture of a microprocessor. Many real-world
implementations of it already exist, that can be used, and there will only be
more.
Free *hardware* is still in its infancy. We should start a project that will
Such *hardware* is still in its infancy. We should start a project that will
catalog the status of various efforts, including at the hardware level (even
the silicon level). Movements like OSHW and Right To Repair are extremely
important, including to the Free Software movement which otherwise will
typically think less about hardware freedom (even though it really, really
important, including to our own movement which otherwise will
typically think less about hardware freedoms (even though it really, really
should!)
One day, we will live in a world where anyone can get their own chips made,
@ -165,9 +178,11 @@ exist, for example, the work done by Sam Zeloof and the Libre Silicon project:
Problems with RYF criteria
==========================
You can read those guidelines by following these hyperlinks:
Libreboot previously complied with FSF RYF criteria, but it now adheres to a
much more pragmatic policy aimed at providing more freedom to more people, in a
more pragmatic way. You can read those guidelines by following this URL:
* [FSF Respects Your Freedom (RYF) guidelines](https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria)
* FSF Respects Your Freedom (RYF) guidelines: **https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria**
The FSF RYF guidelines state the following:
@ -177,29 +192,29 @@ This is a violation of every principle the FSF stands for, *and it should be
rejected on ideological grounds*. The rest of libreboot's policy and overall
ideology expressed, in this article, will be based largely on that rejection.
The definition of *product software* is completely arbitrary; software is
software, and software should always be *free*. Instead of making such
software, and software should always be *libre*. Instead of making such
exceptions, more hardware should be encouraged, with help given to provide as
much freedom as possible, while providing education to users about any pitfalls
they may encounter, and encourage freedom at all levels. When an organisation
like the FSF makes such bold exceptions as above, it sends the wrong message,
by telling people essentially to sweep these other problems under the rug, just
because they involve software that happens to run on a "secondary processor".
If the software is possible to update by the user, then it should be free,
If the software is possible to update by the user, then it should be libre,
regardless of whether the manufacturer *intended* for it to be upgraded or not.
Where it really *isn't* possible to update such software, proprietary or not,
advice should be given to that effect. Education is important, and the FSF's
criteria actively discourages such education; it creates a false hope that
everything is great and wonderful, just because the software on one arbitrary
level is all free.
level is all perfect.
This view of the FSF's, as expressed in the quoted paragraph, assumes that
there is primarily *one* main processor controlling your system. On many
modern computers, this is *no longer true*.
Free *software* does not exist in a vacuum, but we had less freedom in the
Libre *software* does not exist in a vacuum, but we had less freedom in the
past, especially when it came to hardware, so *software* was our primary focus.
[The four freedoms are absolute](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html),
The ability to study, adapt, share and use/re-use software freely is important,
but there is a lot of nuance when it comes to *boot firmware*, nuance which is
largely non-existent outside of firmware development, or kernel development.
Most typical application/system software is high level and portable, but boot
@ -233,13 +248,13 @@ provide incentive for levels of software freedom, such as:
The FSF were willing to ignore it, and certify the TALOS II product under RYF,
but Timothy Pearson of Raptor Engineering had it freed anyway, without being
told to. Hugo Landau reverse engineered the specification and Evan Lojewski
wrote free firmware. See:
wrote libre firmware. See:
See: <https://www.devever.net/~hl/ortega> and <https://github.com/meklort/bcm5719-fw>
* FSF once endorsed the ThinkPad X200, as sold by [Minifree Ltd](https://minifree.org),
which contains the Intel ME; the bootrom is still there, as is the ME
coprocessor, but the ME is put into a disabled state via the Intel Flash
Descriptor, and the ME firmware in flash is removed. However, the ME is an
entire coprocessor which, with free firmware, could be used for a great many
entire coprocessor which, with libre firmware, could be used for a great many
things. In the Libreboot and coreboot projects, there has always been interest
in this but the FSF disregards it entirely. The X200 product they certified
came with Libreboot pre-installed.
@ -255,13 +270,13 @@ provide incentive for levels of software freedom, such as:
machine comes in two versions: with ATI+Intel GPU, or only Intel GPU. If ATI
GPU, it's possible to configure the machine so that either GPU is used. If the
ATI GPU is to be used, a firmware blob is needed for initialization, though the
driver for it is completely free. FSF ignored this fact and endorsed the
driver for it is entirely libre. *The FSF* ignored this fact and endorsed the
hardware, so long as Libreboot does not enable the ATI GPU or tell people how
to enable it. The *Intel* GPU on that machine has free initialization code by
the coreboot project, and a fully free driver in both Linux and BSD kernels.
to enable it. The *Intel* GPU on that machine has libre initialization code by
the coreboot project, and a fully libre driver in both Linux and BSD kernels.
In the configuration provided by Libreboot, the ATI GPU is completely disabled
and powered down.
* All Libreboot-compatible ThinkPads contain non-free Embedded Controller
* All Libreboot-compatible ThinkPads contain proprietary Embedded Controller
firmware, which is user-flashable (*and intended for update by the
manufacturer*). The FSF chose to ignore the EC firmware, under
their *secondary processor* exemption. See:
@ -277,17 +292,15 @@ Problems with FSDG
<img tabindex=1 src="https://av.libreboot.org/firmware.png" /><span class="f"><img src="https://av.libreboot.org/firmware.png" /></span>
The FSF maintains another set of criteria, dubbed [Free System Distribution
Guidelines (GNU
FSDG)](https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html)
or just *FSDG* for short.
The FSF maintains another set of criteria, dubbed Free System Distribution
Guidelines (GNU FSDG)]
The FSDG criteria is separate from RYF, but has similar problems. FSDG is
what the FSF-endorsed GNU+Linux distros comply with. Thoughts:
* Excluding firmware blobs in the linux kernel is *bad*. Non-free firmware
* Excluding firmware blobs in the linux kernel is *bad*. Proprietary firmware
is *also bad*. Including them is a wiser choice, if strong education is also
provided about *why they are bad* (lack of freedom). If you expose them to
provided about *why they are bad* (less freedom). If you expose them to
the user, and tell them about it, there is greater incentive (by simple
reminder of their existence) to reverse engineer and replace them.
* Firmware *in your OS kernel* is *good*. The FSF simultaneously gives the OK
@ -298,21 +311,21 @@ what the FSF-endorsed GNU+Linux distros comply with. Thoughts:
(replace the chip on the card/device). *If the firmware is loaded by the
OS kernel, then the firmware is exposed to the user and it can be more
easily replaced. FSF criteria in this regard encourages hardware designers
to hide the firmware instead, making actual freedom less likely!*
to hide the firmware instead, making actual (software) freedom less likely!*
Besides this, FSDG seems OK. Any free operating system should ideally not
have non-free *drivers* or *applications*.
Besides this, FSDG seems OK. Any libre operating system should ideally not
have proprietary *drivers* or *applications*.
Hardware manufacturers like to shove everything into firmware because their
product is often poorly designed, so they later want to provide workarounds in
firmware to fix issues. In many cases, a device will already have firmware on it
but require an update supplied to it by your OS kernel.
The most common example of non-free firmware in Linux is for wifi devices.
This is an interesting use-case scenario, if freed, because it could be used
for owner-controlled *software defined radio*.
The most common example of proprietary firmware in Linux is for wifi devices.
This is an interesting use-case scenario, with source code, because it could be
used for owner-controlled *software defined radio*.
The *Debian* way is ideal. The Debian GNU+Linux distribution is entirely free
The *Debian* way is ideal. The Debian GNU+Linux distribution is entirely libre
by default, and they include extra firmware if needed, which they have in a
separate repository containing it. If you only want firmware, it is
trivial to get installer images with it included, or add that to your installed
@ -336,8 +349,8 @@ it either.
More detailed insight about microcode
=====================================
To be clear: it is preferable that microcode be free. The microcode on Intel
and AMD systems *are* non-free. Facts and feelings rarely coincide; the
To be clear: it is preferable that microcode be libre. The microcode on Intel
and AMD systems *are* proprietary. Facts and feelings rarely coincide; the
purpose of this section is to spread *facts*.
The libreboot build system now enables microcode updates *by default.*
@ -405,7 +418,7 @@ technically correct solution is to *not* apply the above patches, and instead
supply microcode updates!
Pick your poison. Not adding the updates is *irresponsible*, and ultimately
futile, because you still end up with non-free microcode anyway, just you get
futile, because you still end up with proprietary microcode, but you just get
an older, buggier version instead!
The libreboot build system *no longer* applies the two patches linked above!
@ -429,11 +442,11 @@ Other considerations
Also not covered strictly by Libreboot: OSHW and Right To Repair. Freedom at
the silicon level would however be amazing, and efforts already exist; for
example, look at the RISCV ISA (in practise, actual fabrication is still
proprietary and not under your control, but RISCV is a completely free CPU
proprietary and not under your control, but RISCV is a completely libre CPU
design that companies can use, instead of having to use proprietary ARM/x86 and
so on). Similarly, Right To Repair (ability to repair your own device, which
implies free access to schematics and diagrams) is critical, for the same
reason that Free Software (Right To Hack) is critical!
reason that Libre Software (Right To Hack) is critical!
OSHW and Right To Repair are not covered at all by RYF (FSF's Respects Your
Freedom criteria), the criteria which Libreboot was created to comply with.
@ -482,12 +495,12 @@ that the work is *far* from complete!
If followed *with exemptions unchallenged*, RYF may in some cases encourage
companies to *sweep under the rug* any freedom issues that exist, where it
concerns non-free firmware not running on the host CPU (such as the
concerns proprietary firmware not running on the host CPU (such as the
Embedded Controller firmware).
I propose that new guidelines be written, to replace RYF. These new guidelines
will do away with all exemptions/loopholes, and demand that *all* software be
free on the machine, or as much as possible. Instead of only promoting products
libre on the machine, or as much as possible. Instead of only promoting products
that meet some arbitrary standard, simply catalog all systems on a grand
*database* of sorts (like h-node.org, but better). Include Right to Repair and
OSHW (including things like RISCV) in the most "ideal" standard machine.

127
site/news/usa-libre.md
View File

@ -5,9 +5,8 @@
Introduction
============
This event of such global importance to [Free
Software](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) projects, and the Free
Software movement as a whole, has made me decide to write an article. **The
This event of such global importance to libre software projects, and the
libre movement as a whole, has made me decide to write an article. **The
events in question, covered by this article, will occur on 11 January 2022.
This is just three days away from today, 8 January 2022 when this article was
written, so if you make a decision, you should make it now, today, and prepare.
@ -17,75 +16,77 @@ If you live in New Hampshire or in one of the neighbouring states, especially
Massachusetts, please listen up! If you are further away and unable to reach
New Hampshire all that easily, please spread the following news anyway. It's
important. As alien as it may seem to many of my readers, I'm actually writing
parts of this article as though someone who has never heard of Free Software is
parts of this article as though someone who has never heard of Libre Software
(often referred to as *Open Source Software*) is
reading it, because I expect precisely that such people *will* read this
particular article.
You will see the term *Free Software* used in this article, but some people
call it Open Source Software. [However, you should call it Free
Software.](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html)
The word "free" refers to freedom, not price, though the software is usually
also free as in gratis / zero price.
When we say libre software, we mean software that gives people the ability to
freely study, adapt, share, use and re-use all code or documentation, so as to
enable the free exchange of ideas and, simply speaking, democracy. This is your
Linux distros, BSD projects, and accompanying software that typically comes
packaged. It is sometimes referred to as *Open Source Software*. The word libre
is Spanish for "liberty", meaning freedom. With such software, you, the user,
are able to control your own computing according to your own priorities, which
you otherwise would not be able to do.
The opposite of Free Software is called *proprietary software*, or *non-free
software*. Proponents of Open Source sometimes call non-free software *Closed
Source*, but you should call it *non-free* or proprietary, to highlight the
fact that it isn't free.
The opposite of libre software is called *proprietary software*. The purpose
of Libreboot is to help users *avoid* proprietary software at the firmware
level, whenever feasible.
What's happening in New Hampshire?
==================================
An important bill is being proposed in New Hampshire, which would enshrine
much of what we know as Free Software *into law*. Here is the proposed bill,
much of what we know as Open Source *into law*. Here is the proposed bill,
technically named "HB1273":\
<https://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/legacy/bs2016/billText.aspx?sy=2022&id=1363&txtFormat=html>
You can read it for yourself, but here is a paraphrasing of what it proposes:
* *Specifically* bans state-run websites from serving non-free javascript to
* *Specifically* bans state-run websites from serving proprietary javascript to
clients
* Creates a commission to provide oversight, watching the use of Free Software by state agencies
* Creates a commission to provide oversight, watching the use of libre code by state agencies
* Bans state agencies from using proprietary software - maybe this could include schools, in the future!
* If a person is tried in a criminal case, they have the right to audit the source code of any proprietary software that collects evidence against them
* Encourages data portability (able to transfer data from one program to another)
* Bans certain non-compete clauses and NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) pertaining to Free Software projects
* Bans state/local law enforcement from assisting with the enforcement of copyright claims against Free Software projects
* Bans state agencies from purchasing non-free software if free software exists, for a given task
* Bans certain non-compete clauses and NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) pertaining to Libre Software projects
* Bans state/local law enforcement from assisting with the enforcement of copyright claims against libre software projects
* Bans state agencies from purchasing proprietary software if libre software exists, for a given task
However, this is only a short summary. You are advised to read the bill in
detail. It's not very long.
At first glance, it may not seem that the bill affects individuals, but don't
be fooled; this is a hugely positive step forward for everyone! If the state is
using Free Software, that most likely means it'll be used in education aswell.
using Libre Software, that most likely means it'll be used in education aswell.
Although perhaps not immediately and readily apparent, this is a stake in the
heart of proprietary software's current dominance, because it would remove one
key element of its attack against us; its abuse of education services.
If education services are using Free Software, that means they'll probably have
If education services are using Libre Software, that means they'll probably have
children (the ones being educated) using it too. This is a *huge* step, and it
will result in more Free Software developers in the future. Free Software will
will result in more Libre Software developers in the future. Libre Software will
become more and more mainstream to the masses, which can surely only be a good
thing!
Freedom is always superior. The more people that have it, the better off we all
are, because freedom is also collective; it relies on others around us also
having it, so that we can defend each other. If more people have it, especially
if it results in more Free Software developers in the future, that's one thing,
if it results in more Libre Software developers in the future, that's one thing,
but imagine if *more* states like what they see and start to copy the new
legislation.
Now imagine that countries besides the US start doing it, inspired by the US's
success (and I think it will be a resounding success).
Imagine a world where [Free
Software](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), free as in freedom, is
the default everywhere. Imagine a world where [Free Software
licensing](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html) is required reading
Imagine a world where such liberties over software are commonplace, actually
the default everywhere! Imagine a world where it's considered as important as
the ability to freely learn mathematics, or physics, as required reading
material in schools. *Imagine a world where any five year old can install a
free operating system such as GNU+Linux, and Computer Science is mandatory in
schools from a young age. Imagine filing your tax returns with Free Software,
libre operating system such as GNU+Linux, and Computer Science is mandatory in
schools from a young age. Imagine filing your tax returns with Libre Software,
exclusively. Imagine not even thinking about that, because it became the norm.*
*Imagine a world where proprietary software doesn't exist, because it is
@ -98,34 +99,18 @@ Imagine a world where you're no longer being spied on because NSA, Apple and
Microsoft no longer have backdoor access to your computer. *Imagine having the
ability to say no, because that's what freedom is. Try to imagine it!*
Free Software is a revolution that we in the Free Software movement have
rigorously upheld and fought for, over many years, but we still face an uphill
battle because children are not taught in schools about free computing, nor are
they encouraged to learn; they are taught to view computers as *products* to
throw away every 1-2 years, that they can run a few *apps* on but otherwise are
not allowed to do anything with. The *concept* of a *general purpose, fully
reprogrammable computer* is heavily suppressed in mainstream culture. *Most*
people in the world do not run a free operating system; the idea of a computer
being a mere *appliance* is normalized (as opposed to the idea of it being a
highly liberating tool for development and the expansion of human knowledge).
*This* is what we in the Free Software movement have fought for over the years.
We believe that knowledge is a human right, that the ability to share, study,
learn, adapt and modify the software is an inalienable right that everyone must
have. [The four freedoms are absolute.](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
One of our biggest problem has been simply that schools and governments do not
teach people about free computing. The right to learn, the right to read and
the right to hack. Our governments are made up of human beings just like you or
me, and they can be bought/corrupted; Microsoft, Apple and many others (such as
IBM) have done this for years, having the national infrastructures governing us
run on their proprietary systems, instead of systems that respect freedom; it
is essential that these systems run free software, because a free and democratic
is essential that these systems run libre software, because a free and democratic
society should expect nothing less. Those companies buy influence *and they own
your politicians*.
All of this could change very soon. Something is happening in New Hampshire,
which could redefine our movement and give *free software* real power
which could redefine our movement and give *libre software* real power
instead.
HOW TO HELP
@ -142,7 +127,7 @@ should go to New Hampshire.**
The organizer of the proposed bill, *Eric Gallager*, has left instructions on
Twitter. The following is a *nitter* link, which lets you view the relevant
Twitter thread without running non-free Javascript in your browser:\
Twitter thread without running libre Javascript in your browser:\
<https://nitter.net/cooljeanius/status/1479663133207764992>
The original Twitter URL is:\
@ -175,7 +160,7 @@ If this bill is passed in New Hampshire, more states will likely follow. It
will lead to a massively renewed drive to liberate all computer users, and US
laws tend to be copied/pasted around the world too.
This bill, if passed, will have a hugely positive impact on Free Software at a
This bill, if passed, will have a hugely positive impact on Libre Software at a
global level.
You *must* support this bill. If you want to see it pass, please go to New
@ -185,7 +170,7 @@ OUR ENEMIES WILL BE THERE
-------------------------
The *proprietary* software companies like Microsoft and Apple will also be
there, trying to argue the case *against* the use of Free Software.
there, trying to argue the case *against* the use of Libre Software.
There is already precedent; please watch this video, which shows how Microsoft
(for example) might behave in the reading of the bill. This video is from a
@ -195,48 +180,48 @@ javascript enabled, if you wish)
They will try to trick the law makers by claiming things such as:
* **"Free software is insecure / you will get hacked"** - nothing could be
* **"Open Source is insecure / you will get hacked"** - nothing could be
further from the truth! Free operating systems such as GNU+Linux, FreeBSD and
especially OpenBSD, are among the most secure operating systems available.
* **"Free software is used by criminal hackers"** - here, they use the
* **"Open Source is used by criminal hackers"** - here, they use the
term *hacker* to describe someone who illegally gains access to someone
elses computer. Don't fall for it. Maintainers of free operating systems
elses computer. Don't fall for it. Maintainers of libre operating systems
like GNU+Linux distros or the BSDs are actively working to make the internet
and computers in general *more secure*
* **"Software authors deserve to be paid!"** - In fact, many free software devs
are *paid* to work on Free Software! Many companies, including big ones,
* **"Software authors deserve to be paid!"** - In fact, many libre software devs
are *paid* to work on Open Source! Many companies, including big ones,
work on it. There are also hobbyists or otherwise unpaid people, who might
work on Free Software for a number of reasons (wanting to make the world a
work on Libre Software for a number of reasons (wanting to make the world a
better place, wanting the glory of recognition for solving a major problem,
and more often than not, simply because *it is fun to do so and you make a
lot of friends too!*) - No, these companies (e.g. Microsoft) are only arguing
in reality for the ability to pay their *shareholders*, and they control the
software exclusively. In fact, free software has repeatedly and consistently
software exclusively. In fact, libre software has repeatedly and consistently
over the years *defined* the computing industry, creating all kinds of new
employment opportunities; for example, docker is widely used today and it is
free software, used by millions of companies for commercial gain, and the
libre software, used by millions of companies for commercial gain, and the
apache web server revolutionized the web back in the day, enabling lots of
ISPs to easily host websites - many of the common protocols that we depend
upon today, that businesses depend upon (and get paid to maintain or provide
services/support for) are in fact free as in freedom!
* **"Developers should get recognition for their work"** - in free software, you
* **"Developers should get recognition for their work"** - in libre software, you
can easily make a name for yourself with relatively few resources except your
own computer and an internet connection, plus some cheap hosting. When most
developers work on *proprietary* software such as Windows, they don't get
recognition; their copyright is assigned to their employer (e.g. Microsoft)
who will take all the credit!
* **"Free software is unreliable / costly to maintain"** - actually, it has been
well known for years that free software is generally more stable and reliable
well known for years that libre software is generally more stable and reliable
than proprietary. In cases where it isn't, it is quickly improved, and in
complete freedom. Free software has a lower cost to maintain and service, and
you have a free market where you can choose who you hire to write/maintain it
for you (if you won't do that yourself); meanwhile, proprietary software
such as Windows is often full of bugs, crashes often and there is only one
provider of support most of the time, who will charge a heavy price, while
also charging a lot of money for the software itself - free software
also charging a lot of money for the software itself - libre software
is *free as in freedom*, but also usually *free as in zero price*.
* **"Free software comes from potentially untrustworthy sources"** - This is
pure nonsense, because the very freedoms provided by free software (access
* **"Libre software comes from potentially untrustworthy sources"** - This is
pure nonsense, because the very freedoms provided by libre software (access
to source code, ability to work on it yourself, and see what others did)
means that people generally do not add malware to public software sources,
because they'd be discovered instantly. *Distributions* of GNU+Linux and
@ -249,16 +234,16 @@ They will try to trick the law makers by claiming things such as:
malware on a free system, precisely because security is handled much better;
the design of unix-like operating systems in particular is also naturally
more secure, due to better separation of root/user privileges.
* **"Free software isn't controlled, and is unknown."** - this is completely
false. These non-free software companies are only talking about *their*
* **"Libre software isn't controlled, and is unknown."** - this is completely
false. These non-libre software companies are only talking about *their*
control, and it's quite telling that they completely disregard yours, in this
very sentence. In fact, Free Software *is* controlled, but it's not controlled
by some external entity; *your* installation of free software is controlled
very sentence. In fact, Libre Software *is* controlled, but it's not controlled
by some external entity; *your* installation of libre software is controlled
by *you*.
If you're familiar with the *Matrix* films, proprietary operating systems like
Windows/MacOS are basically like the Matrix; bland, no individuality, no
independent thought, everything tightly controlled. By contrast, free operating
independent thought, everything tightly controlled. By contrast, libre operating
systems (such as GNU+Linux distributions or the BSDs) are like zion/io; vibrant,
full of life, buzzing with activity, everything loose and free, and everyone
is different (a highly diverse culture of people from all walks of life, acting
@ -278,13 +263,13 @@ your own computer, and they actively pursue tactics (such as DRM) to thwart you.
Microsoft and Apple are not your friends. There is no such thing as the
Windows community. When you use proprietary systems, you are isolated from
everyone around you, and so are they. *You* are the product, for the non-free
everyone around you, and so are they. *You* are the product, for the proprietary
software to exploit at the behest of their developers who only care
about *money*.
However, there *is* such a thing as the Free Software community. It is a
However, there *is* such a thing as the Libre Software community. It is a
vibrant community, consisting of millions of people collectively all over the
world, and they are all free to work with each other infinitely. It gave us
most of the technology that we take for granted today, including *the modern
internet, where ISPs run free software almost exclusively!*
internet, where ISPs run libre software almost exclusively!*