Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The "secondary processor exception" is abhorrent, it creates a perverse incentive for vendors who seek RYF to lock down firmware instead of leaving it open to reverse engineering and reimplementation by the community.

A better approach would be to require public documentation of which components are proprietary (for all processor ISAs, processors, other hardware, all firmware and all software) and what roles they play.



I don't see where it creates the incentive to lock down firmware. Any examples? For example, in Librem 5, you can still upgrade the firmware for modem and WiFi: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/community-wiki/-/wikis/Freque....

Documentation would be great of course anyway.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: