6 ms·

> Well GrapheneOS would still be free software?!?!? It's the software from those companies that wouldn't be. I think I have a broader definition of software fr

by Ajedi32 14d ago

> Well GrapheneOS would still be free software?!?!? It's the software from those companies that wouldn't be. I think I have a broader definition of software freedom than you do. In this hypothetical scenario, GrapheneOS itself may technically be "free software" in the sense that the source code is open, but it would still be cooperating in a intentional scheme to prevent you, the user, from modifying it to work the way you want. Same deal if they started selling locked hardware with their signing key hard coded so you can't install a fork. You would legally have the ability to fork the software, but technical measures would be preventing you from running it. Granted, they're not doing that, but it's one short step away. That's why I say it's borderline anti-freedom, not that it actually is. I don't think it makes a difference whether the means employed to make a piece of software non-free are legal (copyright law) or technical (DRM, remote attestation, hardware locks). It's still restricting your freedom.

palata 13d ago
I really want to insist on this: when someone develops software, you don't get to choose what they develop. That's just life. If they make their software open source, you get to fork it (sometimes contribute to it) and this is already very generous. But that's all. I say that as an open source author and maintainer, and my experience is that the vast majority of developers do NOT understand that. I have been criticised, insulted, sometimes bullied by people who wanted me to implement whatever they wanted ON TOP of providing my work for free. You can have your own definition of "free software" that means "the developers have to agree with my personal taste", and say that "Linux is borderline not free software because I want them to officially support Zig and they don't", but it doesn't bring much. What makes Linux free software is that you can fork it. I guess I don't understand the need to have a definition that only serves for complaining about a free project not implementing a feature you want. I get it, you wish GrapheneOS gave you root access. But it is not the choice of the people who do the work and make it available for free. But because it is free software, you can fork it and modify it yourself, and this is great.
- Ajedi32 13d ago
  For what it's worth this isn't just my "personal taste". I think Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation, at least, would agree with my definition[1]: > Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of the original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours—a practice known as “tivoization” or “lockdown,” or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as “secure boot”—freedom 1 becomes an empty pretense rather than a practical reality. These binaries are not free software even if the source code they are compiled from is free. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#make-changes:~:text=If%20the%20program%20is%20delivered%20in%20a%20product%20designed%20to%20run%20someone%20else%27s%20modified%20versions%20but%20refuse%20to%20run%20yours https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#make-changes:~:t... I didn't say anything about what GrapheneOS devs must do. They don't have to do anything. I just think that some of what they are doing comes close to impinging on software freedom in the same way proprietary software does regularly (though again, Graphene doesn't quite cross that line, in my opinion).
  - palata 13d ago
    You misunderstand what Stallman says. The quote agrees with my definition. You can do all that with GrapheneOS today. What you are asking for is root access on the GrapheneOS official builds. Where does Stallman say you should get it?
    - Ajedi32 13d ago
      I'm not asking for anything, I'm telling you what they are doing, and what they are doing is going right up to (but not quite crossing) the line of blocking you from modifying the software on your phone. To re-iterate: > If the program is delivered in a product designed to run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours—a practice known [...] in its practitioners' perverse terminology as “secure boot”—freedom 1 becomes an empty pretense GrapheneOS literally implements secure boot, using a key you do not control. So if you install GrapheneOS, the Graphene devs have the ability to push updates to the code running on your phone but you yourself do not unless you completely uninstall GrapheneOS and wipe all data on the phone. The only thing preventing this from being actually anti-freedom rather than merely borderline anti-freedom is that if you choose to completely un-install Graphene and wipe your phone there's currently nothing that will prevent you from installing another OS built with a different signing key (aside from the inconvenience and technical difficulty of doing so). If there were, then this would be a textbook example of what the FSF explicitly calls "not free software" in that quote.

by Ajedi32 14d ago

palata 13d ago

I really want to insist on this: when someone develops software, you don't get to choose what they develop. That's just life. If they make their software open source, you get to fork it (sometimes contribute to it) and this is already very generous. But that's all. I say that as an open source author and maintainer, and my experience is that the vast majority of developers do NOT understand that. I have been criticised, insulted, sometimes bullied by people who wanted me to implement whatever they wanted ON TOP of providing my work for free. You can have your own definition of "free software" that means "the developers have to agree with my personal taste", and say that "Linux is borderline not free software because I want them to officially support Zig and they don't", but it doesn't bring much. What makes Linux free software is that you can fork it. I guess I don't understand the need to have a definition that only serves for complaining about a free project not implementing a feature you want. I get it, you wish GrapheneOS gave you root access. But it is not the choice of the people who do the work and make it available for free. But because it is free software, you can fork it and modify it yourself, and this is great.

Ajedi32 13d ago
For what it's worth this isn't just my "personal taste". I think Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation, at least, would agree with my definition[1]: > Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of the original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours—a practice known as “tivoization” or “lockdown,” or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as “secure boot”—freedom 1 becomes an empty pretense rather than a practical reality. These binaries are not free software even if the source code they are compiled from is free. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#make-changes:~:text=If%20the%20program%20is%20delivered%20in%20a%20product%20designed%20to%20run%20someone%20else%27s%20modified%20versions%20but%20refuse%20to%20run%20yours https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#make-changes:~:t... I didn't say anything about what GrapheneOS devs must do. They don't have to do anything. I just think that some of what they are doing comes close to impinging on software freedom in the same way proprietary software does regularly (though again, Graphene doesn't quite cross that line, in my opinion).
- palata 13d ago
  You misunderstand what Stallman says. The quote agrees with my definition. You can do all that with GrapheneOS today. What you are asking for is root access on the GrapheneOS official builds. Where does Stallman say you should get it?
  - Ajedi32 13d ago
    I'm not asking for anything, I'm telling you what they are doing, and what they are doing is going right up to (but not quite crossing) the line of blocking you from modifying the software on your phone. To re-iterate: > If the program is delivered in a product designed to run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours—a practice known [...] in its practitioners' perverse terminology as “secure boot”—freedom 1 becomes an empty pretense GrapheneOS literally implements secure boot, using a key you do not control. So if you install GrapheneOS, the Graphene devs have the ability to push updates to the code running on your phone but you yourself do not unless you completely uninstall GrapheneOS and wipe all data on the phone. The only thing preventing this from being actually anti-freedom rather than merely borderline anti-freedom is that if you choose to completely un-install Graphene and wipe your phone there's currently nothing that will prevent you from installing another OS built with a different signing key (aside from the inconvenience and technical difficulty of doing so). If there were, then this would be a textbook example of what the FSF explicitly calls "not free software" in that quote.