They're not saying devices shouldn't be programmable- they're saying if they are, users need to have the right to control the software that runs on said device.

For the FSF it's not about what's more "secure" or less complex, but rather whether there's freedom to be had. In the one case, having rights to view and modify the source gives the user additional freedoms they otherwise don't have, e.g. to apply security patches as you point out. In the other case, it doesn't, because even if they could view and modify the source, they can't make changes to their device with that ability even in principle. Note that, in general, the law does not prohibit users from modifying hardware that they own, so that's not an issue of freedom. But software is.

Having a circuit diagram for a chip you own is cool, but it doesn't allow you to change an IC- you don't have the practical ability to do that. Likewise if the "firmware" is permanent- viewing the "source" is maybe technically interesting but grants you zero additional abilities. If it's defective, it's the same as buying a defective IC. Tough luck.

You can choose not to care about the additional freedom you get if you're allowed to view and modify firmware for programmable devices you own, and that's fine. It's typically not meaningfully important for me either. But it's absolutely not an arbitrary line.

Why do you say it matters where the firmware is being executed? Is it less important to control less powerful computers you own? Why should the code suddenly be unimportant if it's not executing on your main processor?

The line is basically programmability. If a device runs "firmware" that can't be changed, that's really just a part of the design of the hardware you bought, so the fact that you can't see or modify the source code is irrelevant- even if you could, it wouldn't give you any more control over the hardware. If it runs firmware that can be changed, it's a programmable computer, and by running proprietary firmware, you're giving up control you would otherwise have over your computer.

Keep up the good fight Scoopia.

It is clear from the responses you get that people just do not understand what you are saying. But keep trying.

Imagine the FSF argument at the level of the whole computer. If the computer lets you run software, it has to be free software. But if the computer has all its software in hardware that cannot be programmed or updated, then it is not only totally fine but superior to a Windows computer because Windows is closed software even though the Windows computer let’s you run free software and the non-programmable one does not.

Running on Windows is evil because it is software. But running on closed non-updatable firmware baked into your closed, proprietary hardware is good. That is what the FSF has to say. Programmability bad.

There are two ways to fix the FSF position:

1 - they demand that everything be free including all hardware and all hardware running on it. But that means the purists have to stop using all the closed hardware they enjoy today.

2 - the FSF continues with the position that they are ok with closed hardware and defines “free software” to exclude firmware.

There are three words for a a reason, they are three different things: hardware, firmware, and software.

Defining firmware as software makes no more sense than defining it as hardware. In fact, the latter makes more sense to me and would fix the FSF silliness. But what makes the most sense is to acknowledge that they are all different.

Now that I type this, we need a Free Software Foundation, a Free Hardware Foundation, and Free Firmware Foundation.

The FSF mission makes sense if you exclude firmware. The FFF could preach that free firmware is superior to closed firmware. No argument there. The FHF can push for free hardware. That would be great and we could all push for it. But the FHF could also acknowledge that programmable hardware is superior to non-programmable hardware even when only closed firmware exists. The hardware itself is more open and more free. Basically both the FSF and the FHF could be more relaxed about the other. The FHF could be ok with closed software on open hardware just like the FSF is ok with running free software on closed hardware (their stance today).

Honestly, the above is maybe the only sane solution.

That would allow all of us to:

• choose programmable hardware over non-programmable hardware (FHF)
• choose free firmware over non-free firmware when free firmware exists (FFF)
• choose free software to run on the above (FSF)

I bet every one of us would agree to the above. Or at least we could choose which of the three missions to endorse. At least they would all be sane and consistent.

Instead, we get the FSF telling us to ignore the closed hardware behind the curtain while choosing hardware that is more restrictive and less free in the name of avoiding binary blobs. We are being forced to fight a religious war and nobody ever wins those.