Notices by GrapheneOS (grapheneos@grapheneos.social), page 4

@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo End result is closed source hardware with closed source firmware where work actively went into preventing the user from doing things in a way that harms security. It's a way to lower privacy, security and freedom all at once. This is the problem with having an ideology incredibly detached from anything to do with people's well being where it's largely just rhetoric and gaming it.

It's similar to pretending as if GPL doesn't limit freedom.

@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo Linux kernel is GPLv2 only. The code cannot be taken and used in an GPLv3 project. This is a very clear restriction on how the code can be used which is very often relevant. These kinds of license incompatibilities between licenses considered 'free' are a result of restrictions on how the code can be used. Some major projects exist due to these silly incompatibilities.

State enforced rules about how you can use the code is not freedom maximalism.

@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo In fact, they make and promote products which take regular hardware which supports firmware updates and blow fuses or otherwise modify it to prevent updating it. In some cases, they're taking away the ability for people to write new firmware to replace the existing firmware.

It's 100% possible to sell hardware where fuses for verified boot are not yet burned along with supplying tools for users to do it. How is blocking updates more free?

@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo Due to them defining a loophole in their ideology where blocking updates makes it not count, they're encouraging taking away user control rather than granting it. That is exactly what was done with the Librem 5 taking away ways of updating firmware, putting blobs on a secondary CPU and preventing replacing the software there, etc. That is not more open or more free, but less. They defined a huge loophole in their rules and gaming it is encouraged.

@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo They are not freedom maximalists. They care little abouit open hardware and open firmware. It has been repeatedly stated in this thread that blocking updating firmware/software means it doesn't count and can be proprietary, closed source code. To them, it only counts if someone could make an update. Therefore, they don't care about it for software either according to what has been repeatedly stated here as long as updates are not possible.

@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo In fact, they make and promote products which take regular hardware which supports firmware updates and blow fuses or otherwise modify it to prevent updating it. In some cases, they're taking away the ability for people to write new firmware to replace the existing firmware.

It is very much 100% possible to sell a variant of hardware where fuses for verified boot are not burned with tools for the user to do it if they want, or not do it.

@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo A device with very complex closed source hardware and firmware is not an open device. It does a huge disservice to people working on working that to pretend as if not updating the firmware makes it open. It's nothing less than scamming people to falsely market products this way. The product being promoted above doesn't even try to do that in the first place. It would be significantly worse if it did. It would not be more open but rather less.

@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo Preventing updating it doesn't make it go away. It doesn't mean it's hardware. Hardware is also more rather than less limiting anyway. Closed source software can be reverse engineered, analyzed and replaced in a way that's not nearly as possible with hardware.

Firmware that's unobfuscated and loaded by the OS is more open to inspection than having it stored on the hardware without having access to the code. It isn't somehow freer to do that.

@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo Earlier, there was an attempt at promoting a product based on it having an insecure extra firmware component which due to the ability to update it was able to be replaced with an open source replacement. The baseband firmware is still entirely closed source, but the extra CPU between it and the OS can run something else.

How is it logical to claim that not being able to update that would have been more free and more open? It makes no sense.

@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris You take credit for things you have no involvement in. GCC and glibc are hardly even tied to your movement anymore. They're more big tech projects than tied to your community.

As a side note, GCC and binutils aren't used as part of building GrapheneOS.

@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris Your movement largely consists of people on 4chan and equivalent sites. It's filled to the brim with both tankies and fascists. Few are developers or building anything relevant. People writing software under licenses like the GPL doesn't make them part of your movement. It doesn't mean they believe in any of it. It's largely people who spend their time proselytizing and trolling people on social media. Funny calling people useful stuff larpers.

@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris linux-libre is a highly insecure project based around misinforming and manipulating users. The project is thoroughly dishonest with users about what it provides and puts their privacy and security at risk. It puts ideology above people's well being and improving the world. That is what your movement does as a whole. You do not make things better, you make them worse all while you sabotage things and muddy the waters holding back progress.

@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris Most people do not care about your contrived definitions of freedom where preventing them doing things is freedom and locking down the ability to do things is somehow freedom. You claim things are open and free which are not simply due to alignment with your ideology. You claim preventing users and not letting them make informed choices is freedom. It doesn't add up and is increasingly irrelevant. People doing most of the work don't buy into it.

@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo If you make things freely available for anyone to use for any purpose, there's no requirement for them to share any of your beliefs or attribute any of the valuable work people have done to them. That includes instead believing it held it back. Most people writing and using 'free software' do not believe in the mountain of cognitive dissonance believed by an insignificant minority. Extremely few made any conscious decision to support any of it.

@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris It's little different from Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons showing up at our door to proselytize while being incapable of understanding we do not see their beliefs as rational.

@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris That is what your "libre" projects do. They mislead people, hide important information from them and leave them vulnerable. They're thoroughly unethical. You're willing to do unethical things to advance something that's not at all a coherent ideology about freedom but rather a tunnel vision focus on only software. That includes attacking us with false claims, attacking our team, misrepresenting our statements and the rest of what you folks do.

@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris Now you're just making blatant strawman arguments. We said nothing of the kind.

It is you falsely claiming closed source hardware and closed source firmware is open source when it isn't. Pinephones are closed source hardware and firmware. Misrepresenting replacing a weird extra OS on an extra CPU next to the baseband as being open source baseband is a particular egregious form of false marketing by their company and supporters.

@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris Not loading or updating closed source firmware via the OS doesn't make it stop existing. Leaving yourself and more importantly others vulnerable to serious known vulnerabilities is not trying to provide privacy and security. Misleading people about them, hiding it from them and putting them at risk is highly ethical. You don't want people to make informed decisions. You want to eliminate choices and force people to have insecure devices.

@lxo @SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris You're trying to justify highly illogical and nonsensical beliefs you hold with convoluted nonsense. That is your whole ideology. It's just playing a bunch of rhetorical games. You folks claim a device that's completely locked down with no updates is free vs. a device where you can replace major parts of it being non-free if there's a closed source firmware component which can be updated. Most people find it to be ridiculous nonsense, not only us.

@lxo @SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris You don't care about freedom. You want conformance to a nonsensical framework you've come up with where somehow a locked down device where the user can't replace anything is what you consider freedom. You don't want people making informed choices. You go out of the way to try to hide that people are missing patches for severe security issues. You in fact don't want people to have the freedom to apply those updates. You don't want an informed choice.