7 ms·

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

by 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.

palata 12d ago
Again you don't understand Stallman's quote. Let me try: > 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 Tivoisation or lockdown or abusively calling it "secure boot" is, according to Stallman, "non free". GrapheneOS does not do that. GrapheneOS does not even own the hardware that could do tivoisation. GrapheneOS is the fork of the original project that has been updated and installed on the original device. That means that not only GrapheneOS is free, but AOSP as well! > 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 And that's exactly what Stallman calls "free". If it prevents you from doing precisely that, it's not free. But it doesn't, so it's free. Secure boot is a security feature. One that I want. One that makes GrapheneOS more secure than, say, a Linux on mobile (or all the other Android flavours that break secure boot, like it was for /e/OS on my FairPhone 3). The whole point of GrapheneOS is that it is secure, and therefore it is designed around that. Thanks to secure boot, if an app manages to get root access and modify the system, it will be detect on the next boot, and therefore it won't persist. This is a desirable feature. You apparently don't want that, it's your choice. You can use LineageOS, which allows it, or you can fork GrapheneOS and modify that part. This is all free, this is all how it's supposed to work, this is all desirable. GrapheneOS is free to make the product they want, and that product doesn't allow you to have admin access. You seem to misunderstand "owning your device". It does not mean "the software allows you to do everything you want", it means "you can install whatever you want on it". If you install something that does not give you root access (i.e. GrapheneOS), it is your choice.
- Ajedi32 12d ago
  I said it's borderline not-free, not actually not-free so I don't know why you just wrote 7 paragraphs arguing against something I didn't say and have explicitly and repeatedly disclaimed. Yes, GrapheneOS is free, but it has implemented features that are designed to make it harder to exercise that freedom, namely secure boot which puts it one short step (of baking their key in hardware) away from being exactly what that paragraph describes as not free. (And I think you are the one misunderstanding the FSF's quote. They're mocking "secure boot" as perverse terminology for what the FSF calls "tivoization" or "lockdown". They're saying those things are one in the same. I personally wouldn't go that far, as I agree with you the software is still free as long as the key used for secure boot is not baked in to the hardware, and I think the security benefits of secure boot are real and not perverse. But the FSF itself is arguing against the whole idea, at least in this article.)
  - palata 12d ago
    > I don't know why you just wrote 7 paragraphs arguing against something I didn't say I argue against something you keep repeating: > GrapheneOS is free, but it has implemented features that are designed to make it harder to exercise that freedom This is wrong. First because it does not make it harder to exercise that freedom, and second because GRAPHENE DID NOT IMPLEMENT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. People arguing the way you do is, IMO, one of the reasons the "free software" movement lacks credibility. You're just whining because you wish you could have root access on your system without having to install it yourself. I'm out.
    - Ajedi32 8d ago
      I'm confused. Are you saying Graphene doesn't implement secure boot? Or that you don't think requiring users to wipe their phone and install a custom OS build before exercising their freedom makes exercising that freedom harder? > You're just whining because you wish you could have root access on your system This is false, and I think it's intellectually unhealthy to use your perception of a person's motives as an excuse to avoid mentally engaging with the substance of their argument.

by Ajedi32 13d ago

palata 12d ago

Again you don't understand Stallman's quote. Let me try: > 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 Tivoisation or lockdown or abusively calling it "secure boot" is, according to Stallman, "non free". GrapheneOS does not do that. GrapheneOS does not even own the hardware that could do tivoisation. GrapheneOS is the fork of the original project that has been updated and installed on the original device. That means that not only GrapheneOS is free, but AOSP as well! > 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 And that's exactly what Stallman calls "free". If it prevents you from doing precisely that, it's not free. But it doesn't, so it's free. Secure boot is a security feature. One that I want. One that makes GrapheneOS more secure than, say, a Linux on mobile (or all the other Android flavours that break secure boot, like it was for /e/OS on my FairPhone 3). The whole point of GrapheneOS is that it is secure, and therefore it is designed around that. Thanks to secure boot, if an app manages to get root access and modify the system, it will be detect on the next boot, and therefore it won't persist. This is a desirable feature. You apparently don't want that, it's your choice. You can use LineageOS, which allows it, or you can fork GrapheneOS and modify that part. This is all free, this is all how it's supposed to work, this is all desirable. GrapheneOS is free to make the product they want, and that product doesn't allow you to have admin access. You seem to misunderstand "owning your device". It does not mean "the software allows you to do everything you want", it means "you can install whatever you want on it". If you install something that does not give you root access (i.e. GrapheneOS), it is your choice.

Ajedi32 12d ago
I said it's borderline not-free, not actually not-free so I don't know why you just wrote 7 paragraphs arguing against something I didn't say and have explicitly and repeatedly disclaimed. Yes, GrapheneOS is free, but it has implemented features that are designed to make it harder to exercise that freedom, namely secure boot which puts it one short step (of baking their key in hardware) away from being exactly what that paragraph describes as not free. (And I think you are the one misunderstanding the FSF's quote. They're mocking "secure boot" as perverse terminology for what the FSF calls "tivoization" or "lockdown". They're saying those things are one in the same. I personally wouldn't go that far, as I agree with you the software is still free as long as the key used for secure boot is not baked in to the hardware, and I think the security benefits of secure boot are real and not perverse. But the FSF itself is arguing against the whole idea, at least in this article.)
- palata 12d ago
  > I don't know why you just wrote 7 paragraphs arguing against something I didn't say I argue against something you keep repeating: > GrapheneOS is free, but it has implemented features that are designed to make it harder to exercise that freedom This is wrong. First because it does not make it harder to exercise that freedom, and second because GRAPHENE DID NOT IMPLEMENT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. People arguing the way you do is, IMO, one of the reasons the "free software" movement lacks credibility. You're just whining because you wish you could have root access on your system without having to install it yourself. I'm out.
  - Ajedi32 8d ago
    I'm confused. Are you saying Graphene doesn't implement secure boot? Or that you don't think requiring users to wipe their phone and install a custom OS build before exercising their freedom makes exercising that freedom harder? > You're just whining because you wish you could have root access on your system This is false, and I think it's intellectually unhealthy to use your perception of a person's motives as an excuse to avoid mentally engaging with the substance of their argument.