@mjg59 Fun anecdote: A friend of mine once tried to get a certain piece of open hardware RYF-certified. At the time Linux would run on the hardware, without free GPU acceleration. The shipping software/firmware did not include any nonfree components.
They rejected it because users could hypothetically install nonfree GPU drivers. They said if he could get the GPU permanently fused off, they'd certify it.
It was never certified. A few years later, free GPU drivers were available. Had he followed the FSF's ridiculous demand, users would have owned an intentionally crippled piece of hardware and lost the ability to have free GPU acceleration in the future, once it existed.
https://social.treehouse.systems/@marcan/113645334779401139
@marcan @mjg59 they also have blacklists for "bad software" on some of their "certified distros", and don't allow distros like Gentoo to be certified despite being able to be installed without […]
@marcan @mjg59 If you get a product certified then the manufacturer releases a proprietary driver for an undocumented part of the SoC does the FSF revoke your certification?
@marcan @mjg59 That...seems really backwards. I like the idea of "free software" firmware, but going scorched earth on anything that doesn't fall under a particular definition just bothers the […]
@marcan @mjg59 Nothing says freedom like fusing components purely so that users can't do what they please with it.
@marcan @mjg59 By that line of reasoning that hardware should still not be certifiable because users could _still_ replace the free driver with the nonfree driver. Taking that thought further I […]
────
────