Marvell

[Chris Ball]

Hi Dan,

   > You might also note to RMS that the EC code is also not open, and
   > of course neither of these two issues is any different than a
   > generic laptop you buy off the street.  If RMS can't recommend the
   > XO to anyone, then he _certainly_ can't recommend a normal
   > Thinkpad, Dell, HP, etc to anyone either, because they also contain
   > proprietary, non OSS code in their ECs and other parts.

RMS cares less about non-free software on ROM, because then there's at
least no power imbalance -- the author can't make you upgrade to a
version of the ROM that locks you out or removes features, etc etc.
The author has no power to modify it, and neither do you.

He does care about shipping non-free software, though, so the comparison
with other laptops misses the point; his interest is that he wants us to
ship only free software.

   > I believe people are somewhat farther looking into open EC code
   > than wireless firmware bits though.

Yes, thanks mostly to Frieder Ferlemann, we have free code up and
running on our EC chip.  Now we just need to add features..

   > And it's not just the runtime firmware.  Would RMS refuse to
   > recommend the XO because the boot2 firmware that's burned into SPI
   > flash on the wireless module (like our current firmware and EC
   > firmware is) is not open even if the runtime wireless firmware was
   > open?

No.  See http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=353 :

   OFB: Is there any place where it might be reasonable to have
   proprietary firmware, or will the FSF also eventually aim at other
   firmware such as that on a sound card or video card as well?

   RMS: If it is written in a ROM, then it may as well be
   circuits. However, once it is writable and users begin installing
   various versions, then it is visible as software for the user, and
   then it had better be free.

- Chris.
-- 
Chris Ball   <cjb at laptop.org>