Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix Open Source

'100% Free' GNU Boot Discovers They've Been Shipping Non-Free Code - Again (phoronix.com) 36

Posted by EditorDavid from the GNU-for-nerds dept.
Libreboot is a distribution of coreboot "aimed at replacing the proprietary BIOS firmware contained by most computers."

So then what exactly is GNU Boot? Its home page explains... In November 2022, Libreboot began to include non-libre code. We have made repeated efforts to continue collaboration with those developers to help their version of Libreboot remain libre, but that was not successful. Now we've stepped forward to stand up for freedom, ours and that of the wider community, by maintaining our own version — a genuinely libre Libreboot, that after some hurdles gave birth to this project: GNU Boot.
But today, Phoronix writes: While priding itself on being "100% free", last December [GNU Boot] had to drop some motherboard support and CPU code after discovering they were shipping some files that are non-free by their free software standards. Today they announced another mistake in having inadvertently been shipping additional non-free code.

GNU Boot discovered an issue with non-free code affecting not only them but also some of the Linux distributions that pride themselves on being fully free software / 100% open-source. This latest snafu they say is "more problematic" than their prior non-free code discover due to impacting the free software Linux distributions too. The issue at hand though comes down to test data contained within the archive and that containing non-free code in the form of microcode, BIOS bits, and Intel Management Engine firmware.
"We also contacted Replicant..." according to the announcement, "a free Android distro that also ships vboot source code." And in addition, "We had to re-release all the affected tarballs." (Which at this point is three release candidates...)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'100% Free' GNU Boot Discovers They've Been Shipping Non-Free Code - Again More

'100% Free' GNU Boot Discovers They've Been Shipping Non-Free Code - Again

Comments Filter:

  • meanwhile (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 20, 2024 @10:42AM (#64879239)

    your cpu is running "non free" microcode so what is the entire point here? you'd have to switch to risc-v to get a true open cpu.

    • I'm out of points to give, otherwise I would mark this as informative.

    • Re:meanwhile (Score:5, Informative)

      by TechyImmigrant ( 175943 ) on Sunday October 20, 2024 @11:19AM (#64879283) Homepage Journal

      your cpu is running "non free" microcode so what is the entire point here? you'd have to switch to risc-v to get a true open cpu.

      RISC-V is a spec. A RISC-V CPU is an implementation of that spec and there is nothing stopping that implementation using "non free" microcode. In a large CPU, there are many good reasons to incorporate microcode and I expect to see RISC-V with microcode become common.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Briareos ( 21163 )

        In a large CPU, there are many good reasons to incorporate microcode and I expect to see RISC-V with microcode become common.

        You mean "large CPUs" like the Intel 8086 [reenigne.org]?

        I mean, it was quite a big component for it's time with it's 29000 transistors, but...

        • In a large CPU, there are many good reasons to incorporate microcode and I expect to see RISC-V with microcode become common.

          You mean "large CPUs" like the Intel 8086 [reenigne.org]?

          I mean, it was quite a big component for it's time with it's 29000 transistors, but...

          The 8086 was a long time ago used microcode for different reasons. It had a limited transistor budget and microcode was an efficient way to implement lots of instructions. Obviously there were other options, and it wasn't long before transistor budgets increased to allow for microcode-less CPU architectures.
          Today in chips with many more transistors, microcode affords the flexibility to respond to security issues and bugs and to provide support for all sorts of features (VM stuff, trapping, failover etc) wit

    • Are there any free motherboard pcb designs our there?

    • Re:meanwhile (Score:4, Insightful)

      by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <gameboyrmh.gmail@com> on Sunday October 20, 2024 @11:47AM (#64879327) Journal

      Not necessarily RISC-V in particular, but practically speaking you're not going to be able to run 100% libre firmware unless you're also on 100% libre hardware.

    • I'd guess one of the advantages would be that some other company, like the motherboard manufacturer, or an OS manufacturer (read as: Microsoft) couldn't 'decide' for you what OS you can run (read as: 'something other than WIndows', which means Linux). After all there are, really, only three types of operating system anymore for modern desktop computers, and two of them are proprietary and for-profit, and we live in a 'profit above all else' world anymore.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by slashdot_commentator ( 444053 )

      Why on earth are people upvoting this???

      We're not talking "free" as in "beer"; we're talking "free" as the product we purchase is not encumbered by closed software licenses!

      Yes, x86 based CPUs are encumbered in technological corporate fuckery, but some of it is based to make laptops near impenetrable to entities that's not the owner!

      Only ideological zealots (the unkempt neckbeards types like Richard Stallman) and the CCP want RISC-V based CPUs to be adopted by the laptop industry, to avoid the issues posed

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Pimpy ( 143938 )

      This is typically what happens when fanaticism gets in the way of pragmatism. They did previous stuff like try to rip all of the "non-free" firmware/microcode out of the kernel, but without doing anything useful like reverse engineering it/providing open alternatives, just outright disabling functionality. If they want a real free design, then it needs to start at the HW and work its way up, anything else is just a bunch of clowns having a wank.

      • just outright disabling functionality

        That was their only option.

        Modern x86 CPUs with factory settings won't run for long without their proprietary bits. Replacing those bits with any code (FLOSS or not) cannot be done without the manufacturer blessing the code. (A.K.A. Signing the code.)

        To be fair to the fanatics, even the disabling option is a fluke made by the CPU manufacturers. It was implemented because the US DOD wanted a high assurance mode where none of that crap would be running for the CPUs they bought themselves. So, the US DOD

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      your cpu is running "non free" microcode so what is the entire point here? you'd have to switch to risc-v to get a true open cpu.

      That's if you want to use GNU Boot. GNU Boot has very limited compatibility.

      Of course, if you don't mind non-free, you can use coreboot - GNU Boot is a fork of corebook minus the non-free bits. However, there's a bit of controversy since the coreboot devs decided they wanted to help GNU Boot out by moving it to an updated fork they called NewBoot, then libreboot after GNU boot dev

  • >"While priding itself on being "100% free", last December [GNU Boot] had to drop some motherboard support and CPU code after discovering they were shipping some files that are non-free"

    So, essentially, "Gnu Boot" is free by being bootable-free :)

    I like the idea, but I am not sure how it will be possible to replace AND maintain every little bit of what goes into the modern boot process.... IME, LOM, low-level drivers, CPU microcode, etc.

  • Accept that modern CPUs require non-free code and move on. Or make it a fundamental point and look like idiots.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by cstacy ( 534252 )

      Accept that modern CPUs require non-free code and move on. Or make it a fundamental point and look like idiots.

      When there are no more computers free enough to boot Linux, some company will then offer a freely bootable competitor. An alternative would be government regulation requiring that manufacturers provide a freely-boot option for no cost. The trick at that point is the manufacturers right to warranty. They can say the computer has no warranty and is not fit for any purpose except (e.g. running Windows). So when their hardware fails, you have no recourse at all.

      Computers that are not intended as general-purpose

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        That sounds good, but have you forgotten that the CPU you boot is very much non-free in almost all cases already?

  • They could always ... (Score:3)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Sunday October 20, 2024 @12:28PM (#64879415)

    ... advertise it as 99 44/100% pure [06880danwoog.com].

  • Meaning a way to flag a set of code as under a certain license, then mark out the licenses you're willing to accept. Throw a build error if you try to link or combine with the wrong kind of code/tools.

    This isn't something I care a huge deal about, and maybe the issue is getting 'everyone' to participate in the same process/method/system.

    • It's sometimes difficult to distinguish the original licenses and codebase. I've had "open source developers" edit a few lines and scrape off the original copyright notices in favor of their own, or entirely remove them when publishing their open source. And I've had to report them to their company's intellectual property lawyer, because I was being asked to add code to the fraudulently licensed codebase, to protect _myself_ from possible responsibility. That IP lawyer and I had several fascinating conversa

Slashdot Top Deals

If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. -- Wilson Mizner

Close