Stallman Calls For Action on Free BIOS

Dolda2000 writes "Seeking to achieve 100% software freedom, RMS is now calling for action for a free BIOS. From the article: "The most uncooperative company is Intel, which has started a sham 'open source' BIOS project. The software consists of all the unimportant parts of of a BIOS, minus the hard parts. It won't run, and doesn't bring us any closer to a BIOS that does. It is just a distraction. By contrast, AMD cooperates pretty well." For reference, there are currently two projects for a free BIOS that I know of: LinuxBIOS and OpenBIOS."

Comments

Re:Liability problems?

[KiloByte]

The last time I checked, GPL and the vast majority of FS licenses specifically disclaimed every disclaimable type of warranty. In any sane jurisdiction, this leaves just intentional malicious acts.

LinuxBIOS isn't a BIOS

[hpa]

LinuxBIOS is not a BIOS, it's a non-standard firmware interface.

This is pretty much OK for embedded use, but for anything where you need standard BIOS functionality, it's useless. Worse, the name "LinuxBIOS" implies that it is BIOS functionality, which causes people to try to use it in inappropriate situations.

Re:Does Anyone KNow

[Rattencremesuppe]

Does Anyone know what Intel gets out of not opening it up? Are there any IP issues?

Due to the low-level nature of a BIOS, they would expose lots of hardware details. It's the same reason why many hardware manufacturers are reluctant to release open source drivers (or to provide OSS community with hardware specs).

Re:Motherboard support

[IO ERROR]

To be honest, if it's just a BIOS clone, I won't be interested anyway - wake me up when someone recreates OpenFirmware for the PC.

That's what OpenBIOS are doing!

Re:"minus all the Hurd parts"

[Mmm coffee]

This has nothing to do with GNU Hurd, but instead with Free Software itself - to ensure that users aren't restricted by the software they use it is necessary to have Free versions of _ALL_ parts of the system, including the BIOS. If there is one single part of the system that is non-Free, then the entire system is comprimised.

Contrary to popular opinion, Stallman is the last person in the entire Free Software/Open Source movement that I would expect doing something due to an ego issue. Listen to his speeches, read his writings, hell, email the man himself and ask him if this is due to Hurd. He just wants to see people not chained by thier own technology.

Re:It makes sense

[AlXtreme]

GPL licenses do not. Essentialy I write GPL software and I cannot use it in any commercial projects.

Wrong Wrong Wrong. If you write software, you can use it for whatever you want. You can relicense it. You can throw it in public domain. You can perform ritualistic burnings with it. Even if it is licensed under the GPL, if the copyright lies with you or your company.

Using _someone elses_ GPL'ed code in a non-GPL distributed software project is not allowed. With the LGPL you may use _someone elses_ libraries in a non-GPL/LGPL distributed software project. In no way do they limit your right to use your own code in a non-GPL project. If you take _someone elses_ GPL'ed project and modify it, then you must also distribute the modifications. The GPL ensures the freedom of any modifications made by the non-copyrightholders of a project.

How often do we have to beat on this drum? The GPL doesn't take away your freedom to your own code: it gives others (limited) freedom to use it. If management doesn't get it, they shouldn't be herding programmers.