So not 100% open source. Thanks for the info
The general sentiment is that you cannot trust code you did not write yourself and that we need to be able to trust the person who did, but you can form your own conclusions about how that fits into the modern tech landscape.
Full disclosure: am free software advocate.
For me, the open-source movement is about keeping my software and hardware in alignment with my values and security concerns. If there is a part of that "open-sourced" software that is closed to me, I have no way to evaluate that and determine if I want to use it. Yes, this imposes some extremely strict limitations about what I end up with in my projects, but I'm okay with this since it forces me to think differently about certain problems.
I also don't mind that other people use product with closed-source portions or whatever, and in fact, find some of them quite good. I'm a wearer of an original Pebble to this day, and I'm fine with knowing some proprietary libraries are needed to make it go. I didn't build it, I'm not hacking on it, it's just serving my meager smartwatch needs in this instance.
What I do mind is misappropriation of what I consider a clearly defined term. I am not sure why we haven't come up with another term to mean "partially open-sourced" yet (or have we, and I am just not aware of it?) but I think it's time we did so more discerning users can delineate between the two when making a decision about products to purchase or build.
> These non-free software components are not required - you can compile and run Pebble watch software without them. This will always be the case.
This seems like a reasonable balance. They're shipping default distributions with these blobs included, but you can remove them and run the literally completely purely open source version directly instead if you prefer (although it sounds like you'd notably lose heart rate tracking, along with speech recognition & similar).
And worst of all: They are incredibly cheap and don't want to spend any of their money on high quality products or services. Scream at every dollar they have to spend. "I'm better off with this hand-me-down computer that my sister gave me when her office job upgraded machines".
Trying to please FOSS people is like opening a five star budget restaurant for people with complicated allergies. You're going to deal with the worst of humanity and go broke in the process.
2. The people who require the "higher grades" of being open source are simply not a large enough market
3. Being open source is not a natural advantage of a product, in fact, it's more of a risk, liability, responsibility, and effort than being proprietary.
Hence, proprietary is the default.
Like none of the Pinephone, Librem, Framework laptops are "open-source" to the bone.
So given that the word doesn't really apply to hardware, I believe they used it correctly (100% means the set of things where it makes sense to be used) and are not misleading. In fact I strongly dislike some of the "open-hardware" marketing of some previously mentioned devices, when that is obviously false and misleading.
This likely would also mean that it can't be flashed, so if you care about future maintainability, this is also a negative -- it can not be updated/fixed in the future, which may or may not make sense depending on what part we are talking about.
But if there are some kind of signature validation then it gets even more complicated (like e.g. iphone screens knowing if they are from apple or not).
This is a "necessary but not sufficient" thing.
Precursor is the most open personal computing device that can be built currently.
Precursor goes far, but definitely not as far as currently possible.
As an aside, GNU Librephone aims to rectify that by reverse-engineering those blobs and develop their own firmware for baseband chips etc. But I am carefully optimistic about the success since it is a relatively new project and quite a moonshot, even though I would personally stand first in line to buy one if it would materialize.
>Another important note - some binary blobs and other non-free software components are used today in PebbleOS and the Pebble mobile app (ex: the heart rate sensor on PT2 , Memfault library, and others). Optional non-free web services, like Wispr-flow API speech recognizer, are also used. These non-free software components are not required - you can compile and run Pebble watch software without them. This will always be the case. More non-free software components may appear in our software in the future. The core Pebble watch software stack (everything you need to use your Pebble watch) will always be open source.
100% should mean 100%
Main and Contrib has to obey DFSG guidelines, and there's an optional non-free repository which you can enable if you prefer.
Firmware is a gnarly can of worms though, and while I prefer 100% free firmware myself, companies are not brave enough to open that part of their ecosystem, yet, if ever.
NVIDIA does exactly what you said. Move everything to firmware and closed GL libraries, and open source a kernel module to facilitate communication. They even created different firmware versions to prevent open source drivers to use the whole card.
AMD did the inverse: They re-implemented a fully open driver from scratch, opened up the specs, made every part which they can make (legally) accessible, accessible, open sourced ROCm and send in packages to major distributions' (main / open source) repositories. Their firmware is closed source, but it's obtainable and doesn't require signatures to enable the card. They even clashed with HDMI forums to make a libre implementation of v2.1, but the forum basically threatened them.
Intel's graphics drivers are basically the same with AMD.
Broadcom / Intel / Realtek NICs work without their respective firmware blobs, yet their offloading capabilities are disabled. Either way, the drivers are completely open source and in the kernel mainline.
Same for most sound cards sans Creative Labs. I want to hit them with a foam cluebat so bad.
Logitech's all stuff works with open drivers. They are the primary contributor to V4L standard, standardize their webcam interfaces and provide drivers or help.
Do you have any examples in mind?
That sounds ominous.
I can understand not being able to remove non-free dependencies that were used previously, but that sounds like they intend to create new non-free components.
I tend to understand where this comes from. It's part business, part continuation of old customs and the way they did it and being able to control obsolescence to be able push new things to the market.
However, if the periphery of the software you put out is closed source, even though this periphery is optional, it's not fair or ethical to say it's 100% open source.
From my perspective, it can be said it's open core, and it's pretty fair, and acceptable in my case, but writing 100% Open Source* (*: 100% of the open part of the software stack, exceptions apply) is not fair game. It's misleading.
What bothers me is "100%" part of the open source claim. I personally like the Debian model a lot. It's DFSG compliant by default, and if non-free software is needed, it's attainable. Debian is "as Free as you want, as closed as you need".
I see, new Pebble follows the same model, and it's perfectly fine, but branding it as 100% Open Source is not.
I'll not discuss hardware companies. It's a can of worms that doesn't belong to that reply. Let's say while I understand some of their reservations, these reservation doesn't change that they're greedy and selfish (beyond acceptable limits).