Binary blobs, free software, and Fedora
Unlike some distributions, Fedora makes a point of
squeaky-clean licensing. Is the hassle of avoiding
tainted drivers worth it in the long run?
By Jonathan Corbet
,
LinuxWorld.com
, 11/29/2006
- Share/Email
- Tweet This
- Print
LWN recently pointed at a software review claiming that Fedora Core 6 was so bad that the whole distribution should simply be shut down. The failing which led to such
a dire prescription was a lack of proprietary software. According to the reviewer:
I appreciate the fact that distributions like Fedora Core are still focused on free-as-in-rights software, but today's Web
content requires more proprietary browser plugins than yesterday's did, and today's hardware is increasingly designed to be
dependent on proprietary binary blobs in the form of firmware and driver packages... Users do not want to hear reasons and
excuses for why the operating environment doesn't work with their favorite Web sites or computer hardware -- all they know
is that it doesn't work, and making it work is not a simple or obvious process.
This reviewer is not the only one to express this point of view; there would appear to be a rising chorus out there calling
on Linux distributors to load up their systems with proprietary code. Some distributors have heeded this call, as witnessed
by (for example) Ubuntu's decision to include more binary drivers by default in its next release.
It's not too hard to see where this pressure is coming from. A prospective user with a problematic laptop will be happier
with a distribution which "just works." Most of the people who truly care about free software are likely to be using a free
system already, so it is easy to imagine that the next wave of users will be less concerned - at the outset - about software
freedom. So they will gravitate toward a system which does what they want to do (running on closed hardware, playing patent-encumbered
media, etc.) without concerning themselves much about the provenance of the software they are using.
The fact that many of these users worry little about software freedom now does not mean that they will never care, however.
Very few of us were born knowing that free software is a better solution, that using free software is an important part of
being free in general. Just like most of us have learned, over time, that saving some of the money we earn, while perhaps
being inconvenient in the short term, brings long-term benefits, we have also learned that using free software - and helping
to improve that software - is better in the long term. Certainly some subset of the new users coming to Linux will come to
understand this fact as well.
But it will not matter how well these users understand the fine points of software freedom if, by the time they have figured
it out, there are no free operating systems for them to run. If we want free systems then, we have to build and use free systems
now. There can be a place for a binary blob which enables a specific bit of hardware to work; the author would argue that
running such a blob is not an inherently immoral act. But it is not necessarily a wise act, and a distribution which quietly
installs such blobs on an unsuspecting user's system in the name of "it just works" is not necessarily doing that user any
favors.
Comment