Following yesterday’s Linux 6.18 kernel release, GNU Linux-libre 6.18-gnu is out today as the latest release of this free software purist kernel that will drop/block drivers from loading microcode/firmware considered non-free-software and other restrictions in the name of not pushing binary blobs even when needed for hardware support/functionality on otherwise open-source drivers.
With Linux 6.18 there are more upstream kernel drivers dependent upon binary-only firmware/microcode. Among the drivers called out this cycle are the open-source NVIDIA Nova-Core Rust driver as well as the modern Intel Xe driver. Nova-Core is exclusively designed around the NVIDIA GPU System Processor (GSP) usage and thus without its firmware the driver is inoperable. Similarly, with the newer Intel Xe driver depending upon the GuC micro-controller without its firmware the support is also rendered useless.
The FSF’s position is roughly that software (instructions that run on programmable computers) ought to be free as a matter of ethics, but that hardware is different, basically because of the difficulty and resources necessary to “copy” hardware. See Free Hardware and Free Hardware Designs for Stallman’s thoughts. Basically, he (and the FSF) don’t consider “free hardware” to be a coherent concept- just “free hardware designs”. So using FSF terminology, it doesn’t make sense to speak of free or open-source hardware.
The FSF basically draws the line at easy programmability. If a device was designed to be reprogrammed, what it’s running is software, which should be free, otherwise you’re ceding control over that computer to the copyright holders of the software it runs- and that doesn’t just include your host CPU, it includes every computer you own, including other ones on your motherboard. If a device was not meant to be easily reprogrammed, then the “software” it runs is really just a permanent part of the design, and the FSF doesn’t really care about this type of firmware being “free”. Devices with firmware in Linux are clearly able to be easily reprogrammed- you just change the firmware code- so firmware that runs on these devices meets the FSF’s definition of software.
Apologies, when I said free hardware I meant design as well as somewhat blending the term with free firmware. But either way the difference they draw isn’t really all that different when you think about it. It’s sort of irrelevant whether or not the firmware can be easily updated, what really matters is where the firmware is being executed. If it’s running on the device then it can be isolated by the host system, if it’s running on the host then it’s not really firmware but rather part of the driver. The semantics don’t change just because the firmware is “easily updatable.” Having it be uploaded by the driver provides security benefits in that it can be patched by the manufacturer after the fact and having firmware in ROM which can’t be patched doesn’t guarantee it’s more secure or even less complex in design. I guess I just see it as a somewhat arbitrary line and I personally don’t agree with it
They’re not saying devices shouldn’t be programmable- they’re saying if they are, users need to have the right to control the software that runs on said device.
For the FSF it’s not about what’s more “secure” or less complex, but rather whether there’s freedom to be had. In the one case, having rights to view and modify the source gives the user additional freedoms they otherwise don’t have, e.g. to apply security patches as you point out. In the other case, it doesn’t, because even if they could view and modify the source, they can’t make changes to their device with that ability even in principle. Note that, in general, the law does not prohibit users from modifying hardware that they own, so that’s not an issue of freedom. But software is.
Having a circuit diagram for a chip you own is cool, but it doesn’t allow you to change an IC- you don’t have the practical ability to do that. Likewise if the “firmware” is permanent- viewing the “source” is maybe technically interesting but grants you zero additional abilities. If it’s defective, it’s the same as buying a defective IC. Tough luck.
You can choose not to care about the additional freedom you get if you’re allowed to view and modify firmware for programmable devices you own, and that’s fine. It’s typically not meaningfully important for me either. But it’s absolutely not an arbitrary line.
Why do you say it matters where the firmware is being executed? Is it less important to control less powerful computers you own? Why should the code suddenly be unimportant if it’s not executing on your main processor?