Making Haiku Free Software

1

Kia ora koutou

I’ve just been reading about why the Free Software Foundation doesn’t endorse Haiku. Their reasons are:
"Haiku includes some software that you’re not allowed to modify. It also includes nonfree firmware blobs."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/common-distros.html

So firstly I’m wondering if this is still true. What software does Haiku include that can’t be modified? Are there nonfree firmware blobs in Haiku? If so, what would it take to resolve these issues so that R1 could be endorsed by the FSF?

I think it would be valuable for Haiku to have the FSF as an ally. Here’s why: Linus Torvalds will not live forever (unless he gets bitten by a vampire or becomes a zombie :wink:

  • One day, when Linus can no longer be benevolent dictator of Linux kernel development (if not before), Linux will probably split into multiple forks
  • One day, rather than multiple flavours of one free code OS (“Linux”) competing against the two proprietary giants, there will be multiple free code OS competing against each other
  • One day Haiku will have a production release.
  • One day the HURD will have a production release, and GNU/HURD operating systems will become viable.

GNU/ HURD will be aimed at servers. Haiku is aimed at personal computers, and could be useful on desktops, laptops, tablets, and handhelds (“smartphones”). If it in the FSF’s interests to support this proliferation of viable free code OS, and for GNU to cross-promote with other OS which are GPL-compatible.

I have seen it written that Haiku is under the “MIT license”. Is this the:

  • Original 4-clause BSD license
  • New BSD License/Modified BSD License
  • Simplified BSD License/FreeBSD License

The latter two are considered GPL-compatible, and would not interfere with FSF endorsement. The “Original” BSD license has a stupid clause (#3) which has been dropped by most projects using this license family, so I doubt it is a problem, but it would be good to know for sure.

I don’t think it’s necessary for Haiku to relicense to GPL or LGPL, although it would be good to have all the core OS code under one version of one license (as mentioned above, simplified or modified BSD is fine), so people know exactly what they’re getting without wading through traumatic flamewars on these forums to try and find out.

In anticipation of the anti-Linux and anti-GPL FUD, yes, I am a GNU/Linux user, have been for years. About 10 years ago, I was trained at a professional college to install, configure and operate Windows (95,98,2000) for high-level business use. I have also run XP on my own laptop, and tried to repair systems running ME, Vista, and 7. I have discovered that it is a retarded operating system, with many irreparable design flaws. It may be pretty, and it may work perfectly on the day you open the box (if you’re lucky), but to keep it that way takes heaps of work by experienced technicians, and reinstalling every year or so (if the license code on the box works). Also, it is sold at ludicrous prices by a vicious anti-freedom corporate monopoly.

I transitioned to GNU/Linux as quickly as possible, and I’ve been mostly Windows-free for years. I’m interested in Haiku because it is an open source project, with many different things to offer, for different use cases. As mentioned above, I anticipate a proliferation of well-supported free code OS for different use cases. I see testing Haiku as a step towards that diversification.

He mihi nui ki nga kaitiaki o Haiku
Danyl Strype
Community Developer
http://www.disintermedia.net.nz/

2

The problem with the FSF is they’re never, ever, ever going to be happy unless your project contains free software and only free software and nothing else. Haiku has proprietary firmware blobs, because otherwise some proprietary hardware components won’t work. With Linux you often have to go and add the proprietary blobs by hand (I had to do this to get wireless working on a Powerbook once,) and until you do you have only a half-functional system, all because they care more about checking off the Free Software checklist than being usable. That’s putting dogma above the needs of the user, and frankly that’s not something Haiku needs.

3

There’s actually a link to the license neer the bottom of the faq in the about section.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

I however propose a new license

you have permission
freely use this software
without warrant

4

I don’t know actually, but I really don’t see what Haiku could gain from an endorsement by FSF, it’s not as if it has some effect on the uptake on a system as far as I can see, are they endorsing Ubuntu for instance? I doubt it, yet it’s the most popular Linux distro.

[quote=strypey]
I think it would be valuable for Haiku to have the FSF as an ally. Here’s why: Linus Torvalds will not live forever[/quote]
I seriously doubt there will be any forks as a result of Linus passing, also there are already next-in-line Linux maintainers who could step in with a seconds notice like Greg Kroah Hartman who just like Linus is also hired fulltime by the Linux foundation. Also if Linus gets to die of old age (most likely scenario) his successor(s) will have taken over since long. Also, nothing prevents you from forking Linux right now, it’s not as if you need Linus permission.

[quote=strypey]
One day the HURD will have a production release, and GNU/HURD operating systems will become viable.[/quote]
Hrmmm… well we’ll see I guess, but by that time I expect Haiku to have reached version 5.0 :slight_smile:

Well frankly I don’t see the differences between these licences to have much of a practical impact, and as such I don’t see it as any real problem. Obviously that can’t be said about a hypothetical change to GPL, and while there are certainly some advantages like being able to incorporate Linux GPL code, given how different the systems are I think you’d still have to rewrite any code basically from scratch.

In short, as long as all the developers/contributors are perfectly happy with the current licencing, which they have been as far as I know then there’s no reason to ponder a change of licence.

So am I, been using Linux more or less full-time for 5-6 years. I hope to be using Haiku as my day-to-day desktop OS some day in the future, even so I don’t see myself ever stop using Linux.

Anyway, there are some anti-Linux fud here from time to time but generally people are tolerant and come here because they really like Haiku, not because they hate a particular OS/ideology.

You bringing up FSF and GPL in conjunction with Haiku does make some alarm bells go off in my head though, and I really hope this thread won’t degenerate into a licence feud with the inevitable ‘which one is more free?’ semantics discussion (yawn).

5

My qualifications: I used (and only used) a FSF endorsed GNU / Linux distribution for over a year and am a self proclamed freetard.

I don’t know of any software included with Haiku that can’t be modified. As far as I know, it’s all MIT and some (optional) GPL.

As for binary blobs, some are used in order to initialize video card hardware, such as here:

http://cgit.haiku-os.org/haiku/tree/src/add-ons/kernel/drivers/graphics/radeon/CPMicroCode.h

Radeon and NVidia cards can’t be used for hardware accelerated graphics without binary blobs. Linux can set the correct screen resolution without the blobs, so I don’t know how much they’re actually needed by Haiku right now.

One requirement from the FSF is that the official documentation not make any reference to installing non-free software, including drivers. Since Haiku is aimed at being an easy to use desktop operating system for anyone that can run BeOS applications, I’m afraid I don’t see it in Haiku’s best effort to become officially supported by the FSF. :frowning:

No, that’s not the problem with the FSF, that’s the definition of the FSF. You may not agree with their ideas, but if you enjoy using any free software, including Linux and Haiku, you owe a lot to Richard Stallman’s work and the FSF.

6

[quote=drcouzelis]One requirement from the FSF is that the official documentation not make any reference to installing non-free software, including drivers. Since Haiku is aimed at being an easy to use desktop operating system for anyone that can run BeOS applications, I’m afraid I don’t see it in Haiku’s best effort to become officially supported by the FSF. :frowning:

No, that’s not the problem with the FSF, that’s the definition of the FSF. You may not agree with their ideas, but if you enjoy using any free software, including Linux and Haiku, you owe a lot to Richard Stallman’s work and the FSF.[/quote]
That’s a very Stallman thing to say; while I’ll give the man a hats-off for the GNU toolchain, there’s a lot of unwarranted self-importance floating around the Free Software movement (“GNU/Linux,” anybody?) The blind dogmatic opposition not just to the idea of closed-source software, but to the idea of anybody ever using any that already exists is absolutely a problem, for the very reason you yourself stated: it’s a horrible pain in the butt for people who would like to simply install an OS and have it work when their system may very well include proprietary hardware that requires proprietary firmware, which is not necessarily replaceable with more open equivalents (unless you have a suggestion for swapping out the Broadcom internal wireless from that old Powerbook I mentioned? And no, “get a PCMCIA NIC” does not count.)

7

[quote=commodorejohn]
it’s a horrible pain in the butt for people who would like to simply install an OS and have it work when their system may very well include proprietary hardware that requires proprietary firmware, which is not necessarily replaceable with more open equivalents[/quote]

No one, certainly not FSF is preventing you from using proprietary code/drivers/firmware. They (FSF) only say that if you do, it’s not ‘Free Software’ which in their terminology means software which gives the recipient right to the source code so that they can modify it at will.

8

Nobody’s preventing it, no. But as drcouzelis says, “One requirement from the FSF is that the official documentation not make any reference to installing non-free software, including drivers.” And Linux distributions (not even strictly abiding by FSF wishes) already commonly require you to handle firmware blobs yourself, from a designated “non-free” repository that you have to manually enable. So no, you’re not prevented from using proprietary software, you’re just expected to keep it in the closet and feel shame and self-loathing for it and wish to God that you could own proper, open hardware.

9

[quote=commodorejohn]
And Linux distributions (not even strictly abiding by FSF wishes) already commonly require you to handle firmware blobs yourself, from a designated “non-free” repository that you have to manually enable.[/quote]
If by ‘handle firmware blobs yourself’ you mean enable a repo. Even less work than going to NVidia or AMD’s homepage and download the latest drivers and installing them manually which is what I did all the time back when I was running Windows as the ‘official’ drivers from Windows update always lagged behind, and so did everyone else I knew who ran Windows.

[quote=commodorejohn]
So no, you’re not prevented from using proprietary software, you’re just expected to keep it in the closet and feel shame and self-loathing for it and wish to God that you could own proper, open hardware.[/quote]
Oh, could you be any more desperate in trying to attack FSF? Seriously?

Them being against proprietary code and advocating open source free software is such a terrible crime against your senses as it fills you with self-loathing and shame. LOL, wtf?

Newsflash, FSF exists to promote free software over proprietary software, you don’t have to agree with them, not even in order to make use of said free software. If your choice to use proprietary drivers fills you with shame and self-loathing due to the policy of FSF then I suggest you go see a shrink.

10

The point is, they have non-free software - essential non-free software - but they require the user to jump through a hoop to get it, because simply acknowledging that it’s a necessary evil and dealing with it wouldn’t suit their ideology. I have nothing at all against free software, but that kind of “put FSF dogma before the needs of the users” philosophy is exactly the kind of thing I don’t want to see in Haiku.

11

As anticipated this is devolving into a flame war. Chill out guys :slight_smile:

I appreciate what the FSF has accomplished and I agree with many of their ideas, but they are also clearly not pragmatic. Their list of “unendorsed” Linux distros is a laundry list of all the most popular distros.

It is very difficult not to use binary blobs for hardware unless one manufacturers the system from the ground up and ensures only openly documented hardware is used in the system. Ideally a “HaikuBox” would be such a thing, but right now we have to deal with the hardware that people have, and that means binary blobs for firmware, primarily wireless cards.

I’m not aware of what components of Haiku have source code which cannot be modified, but as an open source advocate I would certainly be willing to try to fix that.

As for the license, Michael Phipps specifically chose MIT when he started the project so that Haiku could be more commercial friendly. Maybe a GPL expert would argue that the GPL does not hurt commercial software, but I don’t think that is the common perception. Also it is my experience that the use of MIT and similar licenses is very prevalent nowadays and some really healthy communities evolve around it (my best example being the Ruby community.) I think when one looks at the real world people tend to give back on their own volition when dealing with open source software, and they don’t need a draconian license to force them to do so (please don’t try to argue that the GPL is not draconian, it is.)

So while I appreciate the original poster’s motivations here, I think it is safe to say that while Haiku is aimed at common hardware, we will have to use binary blobs.

Lastly I will say I’m happy that Haiku is at least on their “unendorsed” page :wink:

Regards,
Ryan Leavengood, Haiku developer

12

As far as I know, all of Haiku is currently open source software, but it isn’t all free software. So if you are an open source advocate (as opposed to a free software advocate) then there’s nothing to fix. :slight_smile:

For anyone who would like a very brief description of the difference between the two: Open source software is about using the best technical solution. Free software is about believing that software that protects a user’s freedom is more important than anything else.

Because of Richard Stallman’s then recent work on the GPL and the FSF, Linux torvalds decided to use the GPL. It is believed that the success of Linux and the explosion of free software available would not be anywhere near what it is today without the work of the FSF. (See: “Revolution OS”) To further add to what I’m trying to say, here’s a simple point: the work of both Richard Stallman and Steve Jobs are widly loved and widly disliked by large groups of people. Regardless of anyone’s feelings though, it’s hard to deny that both have had a huge impact on the computer industry.

…Since this topic is specifically about free and open source software, I thought this would be a good place to be pedantic. I hope my answers are not antagonistic. This is just a topic I love to talk about. Please forgive me! :smiley:

…Oh, and as for Haiku, I don’t think any change in license is necessary. It’s doing great the way it is. :slight_smile:

13

That’s up to the distros, FSF has no say in that so if you think enabling a repo is a goddamn chore then take it up with the maintainers of your distro of choice.

It may be a ‘necessary evil’ to you, but not to me. I run Linux with Nouveau, all my hardware works right out of the box with Linux, and thanks to the existance of these open source drivers there’s a chance I will have that same experience when running Haiku.

Meanwhile if it weren’t for open source drivers you wouldn’t be able to run Haiku on anything.

It’s not as if Haiku is likely to have official driver support from hardware vendors anytime in foreseeable future, if ever.

14

Well as far as I can tell they have never had any interest in being ‘pragmatic’, nor have they ever presented themselves that way. They exist to promote the idea of free software, no more no less.

[quote=leavengood]
Also it is my experience that the use of MIT and similar licenses is very prevalent nowadays and some really healthy communities evolve around it (my best example being the Ruby community.)[/quote]
Personally I haven’t seen any changes in overall licencing, GPL is mostly used for larger projects/applications which are full/finished solutions, while MIT/BSD style licencing is very often the choice for component/framework style code.

[quote=leavengood]
Maybe a GPL expert would argue that the GPL does not hurt commercial software, but I don’t think that is the common perception.[/quote]
In what context does it hurt commercial software?

I think you and I have very different definitions of ‘draconian’. GPL is basically a tit for tat licence, atleast I’m certain that it’s that mechanism which has made it the most popular open source licence.

As for if it’s needed or not, in a perfect world surely not, but we are not living in a perfect world. That’s why we still suffer under things like proprietary drivers which prevents us from using hardware we bought in whatever OS we choose.

15

No, but they’re one of the chief proponents of that kind of dogmatic approach to the issue.

For me, no. A nuisance, yes, not really a chore. (Particularly now that I’ve given up on Linux.) But I have to wonder how many newbies opt to give it a shot, only to find that not only do they have to manually install drivers for their hardware (an understandable annoyance that other OSes share,) they have to manually install drivers that the OS already has and knew perfectly well were needed, and how often that moment of hassle for ideology’s sake kills their nascent interest then and there. (I think the fact that, as Ryan pointed out, most of the really popular distros are on the FSF’s “unapproved” list is telling.)

And that’s absolutely great for you - but what about everybody else?

[quote]Meanwhile if it weren’t for open source drivers you wouldn’t be able to run Haiku on anything.

It’s not as if Haiku is likely to have official driver support from hardware vendors anytime in foreseeable future, if ever.[/quote]
Did I miss something? When did I badmouth open-source drivers?

16

[quote=commodorejohn]
No, but they’re one of the chief proponents of that kind of dogmatic approach to the issue.[/quote]
And you think they should not be allowed to, because? They want people to use free software, they don’t force people to use free software.

[quote]
But I have to wonder how many newbies opt to give it a shot, only to find that not only do they have to manually install drivers for their hardware (an understandable annoyance that other OSes share,) they have to manually install drivers that the OS already has and knew perfectly well were needed[/quote]
What are these drivers the ‘os’ already has? The Linux kernel has tons of drivers which are identified and ‘installed’ automatically during boot. Out-of-tree drivers (in other words proprietary) needs to be installed through some distro mechanism which afaik always requires user interaction (just like on Windows).

In Linux distributions this usually means enabling a repository which contain proprietary/patented code which the end user must choose to install at their own discretion.

The same is true here on Haiku, it doesn’t even ship freetype2 with lcd-hinting enabled due to fear of patents.

[quote=commodorejohn]
(I think the fact that, as Ryan pointed out, most of the really popular distros are on the FSF’s “unapproved” list is telling.)[/quote]
I pointed out that even earlier in this thread. Which again shows that it’s up to the ‘distros’. FSF does not control what they do.

Wow, I’m the ONLY one who gets by on open source drivers and everybody else needs proprietary drivers. And again, nothing prevents you from using those proprietary drivers, not FSF, not the distros.

[quote]
Did I miss something? When did I badmouth open-source drivers?[/quote]
Your whole drivel insinuates that we can’t live without proprietary drivers, if that was the case then Haiku is dead in the water. Luckily it’s not, again thanks to open source drivers.

17

[quote=Rox][quote=commodorejohn]
No, but they’re one of the chief proponents of that kind of dogmatic approach to the issue.[/quote]
And you think they should not be allowed to, because? They want people to use free software, they don’t force people to use free software.[/quote]
You’re putting a lot of words in my mouth here. Disapproving of a blindly dogmatic approach and the negative effects it has on accesibility for new users does not mean I think they should be censored - it just means I wish they’d give greater consideration to what the side-effects of their advocacy are.

Yes, but that’s a minor annoyance, not a serious lack of functionality. You don’t nead anti-aliased text to have a thoroughly functional operating system, and Haiku even has a monochrome anti-aliasing method available with no extra hassle; subpixel anti-aliasing is a little nicety, but not any kind of crucial component. That’s a far cry from not even being able to use the wireless because the distro maintainer thinks it’s better not to have it automatically fetch the proprietary firmware blob when it detects it.

Quite to the contrary - I firmly believe that, given sufficient time and manpower, we would have no need at all for proprietary drivers, and I would love to see such a thing come to pass. But as you said in another post, we don’t live in a perfect world, and until someone gets Broadcom’s wireless reverse-engineered, or finishes 3D acceleration for Nouveau, or so on and so forth, there’s still times where it’s just a lot less pain to suck it up and live with something that is not free software. To act as though this is not the case (such as, for instance, to suggest that OS documentation make no mention whatsoever of there being such a thing as proprietary software) is to put dogma above the needs of actual users, and that’s not something I think the world needs any more of.

18

What is it you want them to do? Say they think proprietary drivers are an ok thing? Of course they won’t say that, they are against proprietary code. You might aswell try to get Ballmer to say GPL is an ok licence. On the other hand, neither of them can prevent YOU from using proprietary code or GPL.

I am assuming you are talking about Broadcom again, they have open sourced drivers which are now included in the Linux tree, afaik there are legacy hardware which still need the proprietary driver to be manually installed which is most likely the same situation as on Windows.

Secondly, I don’t even know if the distros are legally allowed to distribute their proprietary driver, as far as I can tell all distros point to broadcom’s webpage for those instead of providing it through a user-enabled repo where most other proprietary/patented code resides.

Also don’t know if NVidia actually allows their proprietary drivers to be shipped directly with a distro, which again could very well be why some distros choose to place such drivers in a ‘community-driven’/‘user-enabled’ repository where the distro itself may not have to bear any legal consequences, just as with code which is known to be based on patented ‘tech’.

Why is that a problem? It only affects those seeking to earn FSF’s endorsement, as such they must CHOOSE to do so.

19

It’d be nice if they’d acknowledge that sometimes proprietary drivers are necessary, until free alternatives catch up with them.

Thing is, “legacy hardware” is always useful to someone. The specific instance I’m referring to is this: the Powerbook G4 has a Broadcom wireless chipset. For some reason, getting it working under Linux requires a little utility to grab a binary blob from the actual device firmware (at least if I’m understanding the description in the repository correctly.) There is a utility for this in the repository, and it could easily be enabled by default, but (on Debian and MintPPC at least) it’s not, because it’s Proprietary and therefore has to go in the Non-Free Repository.

Why is that a problem? It only affects those seeking to earn FSF’s endorsement, as such they must CHOOSE to do so.[/quote]
Well yes, and the fact that the FSF endorses that kind of obstinately dogmatic thinking is one of the chief reasons that anybody bothers with it. No, they’re not forcing anybody to put FSF dogma ahead of the needs of users, but they’re advocating it.

20

But… That’s silly. Then it wouldn’t be the FSF. You’re basically saying “The people that promote the idea that non-free software is never the right solution should acknowledge that sometimes non-free software is the right solution”. See? Silly. :stuck_out_tongue:

In their opinion (and mine), proprietary drivers are never necessary, which means either actively choose to buy only hardware that supports free software or don’t use it. It is absolutely not an opinion everyone is forced to have, but I am extremely grateful that there are people fighting for me to have that opportunity to use that freedom.

Anyway, commodorjohn, in the future, to avoid these sorts of posts where you have to say the same thing again and again, all you need to say is “I’m a fan of open source software but I disagree with the free software movement.” :slight_smile: