Non-free Linux Code
lxoliva at fsfla.org
Wed May 26 16:03:44 UTC 2021
[adding the mailing list]
On May 26, 2021, BTD Master <btdmaster at disroot.org> wrote:
> I noticed PureOS mentioned. However, in its repositories it seems to
> use the vanilla Debian kernel
*nod*; Debian cleans up Linux, and PureOS relies on that.
> what exactly the Linux-libre kernel has
> that is important for free software.
We also disable loading of known non-free firmware, so that, even if you
install it on a hostile distro that automates installation of non-free
firmware based on kernel requests, you won't get any.
That's important for GNU FSDG-compliance of a kernel distribution.
For a distro that encompasses the other pieces and knows they won't
induce users to error, this extra step is not essential.
> Looking through deblob-check, however, I could not find anything beyond
> MIT-licensed assembly code with magic bytes being removed
Which version did you look at, and what specifically did you see?
I don't think that description is fitting for anything we do or did.
> though not copyleft C code, it is nothing like the awful things that
> go on in linux-firmware.
MIT/X11-licensed sourceless binary code is just as non-Free as something
distributed under an obnoxious license. Either one distributed in
combination with a GPLed program deviates from the terms of the GPLv2
and triggers its automatic termination. So it's not like it wouldn't be
awful in its own way.
> Is there something I am missing that makes the mainline
> kernel tree
> objectively non-free?
is still applicable.
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>
More information about the linux-libre