Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Reverse Engineering

[arthur_torrey]

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 10:01:13 +0100
From: Fabio Pesari <fabiop@gnu.org>
To: Koz Ross <koz.ross@retro-freedom.nz>,
Esteban Enrique <esteban.enrique.97@gmail.com>
Cc: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Reverse Engineering
Message-ID: <56B5B659.8090006@gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252

On 02/06/2016 06:50 AM, Koz Ross wrote:
>
> With respect to Libreboot, no amount of reverse engineering will help -
> the Intel ME is cryptographically signed, and no replacement we make
> will ever run, full stop, unless Intel gives us the signing keys. While
> I admire your desire to help, it's important to understand what *can*
> and *can't* be helped - and this particular thing *can't* be helped.

That's why I say we should build our computers from hardware components
with libre designs.

I think reverse engineering can be a waste of time, if what it achieves
is being able to run free software on a single outdated, underpowered
and out-of-production device after many months of research.

That's my main criticism of Libreboot. Instead of freeing old boards,
the community should focus on building its own. Yes, that's expensive
and needs experts and it's more about hardware than software, but there
is no "Free Hardware Foundation" and the free software community should
be able to fund its own research just like corporations do.

<SNIP>
Actually there really can't be a "Free Hardware" movement in the same way there 
is a Free Software movement, since while 'bits are free, atoms cost money'...  
I believe I have even seen comments from RMS to this effect, though I don't 
have source offhand.

Thus hardware by it's nature needs to be 'Open Source' - where the information 
needed to replicate a given device is available, but not necessarily the atoms 
to do so...  There is also the problem of at what level one goes to make the 
hardware - most of us aren't going to build our own electronic components, dig 
ore out of the ground and make metal, etc...

That said, there is the Open Source Hardware Association http://www.oshwa.org/ 
that does in some ways try to do the equivalent of the FSF...  

There are also significant "I.P." differences in the way hardware and software 
are treated, mostly revolving around the concept that the primary protection on 
software is copyright, and on hardware is patents, so 'copyleft' is not really 
relevant, and there isn't an equivalent in hardware.

ART


------------------
Arthur Torrey - <arthur_torrey@comcast.net>
-------------------