diff --git a/www/conservancy/static/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liberation.html b/www/conservancy/static/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liberation.html index e9f608bc2406985260ce27c6595f255702ba4675..c86c0daacc3f5e47779921a05289f77977eaab1b 100644 --- a/www/conservancy/static/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liberation.html +++ b/www/conservancy/static/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liberation.html @@ -5,62 +5,30 @@

Firmware Liberation Project

-

Brief History of OpenWRT

- -

The spring of 2003 was a watershed moment for software freedom on - electronic devices. 802.11 wireless technology had finally reached the - mainstream, and wireless routers for home use had flooded the market - earlier in the year. By June - 2003, the - general public knew that Linksys (a division of Cisco) was violating the - GPL on their WRT54G model wireless routers. Hobbyists discovered that - Linux, BusyBox and many GNU programs were included in the router, but - Linksys and Cisco had failed to provide source code or any offer for source - code to its customers. Linksys had violated the GPL, the license of these - projects.

- -

A coalition successfully enforced the GPL in this case, and Linksys - released source code. A group of - volunteers quickly built a new project, called OpenWRT based on that - source release. In the years that have followed, OpenWRT has been ported to - almost every major wireless router product. Now, more than 15 years later, - the OpenWRT project routinely utilizes GPL source releases to build, - improve and port OpenWRT. OpenWRT has spurred companies to create better - routers.

+Conservancy plans to select a class of product in the Linux-based embedded +system space. For this product, Conservancy will launch, or assist, a +project that creates a functioning alternative firmware for those devices. +The promise of GPL enforcement is only realized through actual, practical use +and improvement of the released software for users.

GPL Enforcement Needs Follow-Through

Simply enforcing the GPL is an important first step, and Conservancy - continues our efforts in that regard. However, - the success found with OpenWRT can be replicated only if there is - substantial effort after enforcement occurs to turn the - compliant source release into a viable alternative firmware for the - platform.

+ continues our efforts in that + regard. However, We can + replicate the + success found with OpenWRT only by a substantial + effort after enforcement occurs to turn the compliant + source release into a viable alternative firmware for the platform.

Conservancy has seen non-compliant Linux-based firmwares on refrigerators, baby monitors, virtual assistants, soundbars, doorbells, home security - cameras, police body cameras, cars, AV receivers, and televisions.

- -

This wide deployment of general purpose computers into mundane household - devices has profound privacy and consumer rights - implications. Home security cameras are routinely compromised - — invading the privacy and security of individual homes. Even when - companies succeed in keeping out third parties, consumers - are pressured - by camera makers to automatically upload their videos to local - police. Televisions - routinely spy - on consumers for the purposes of marketing and massive data - collection.

- -

“Internet of Things” firmware should never rely on one vendor — even the - vendor of the hardware itself. This centralized approach is brittle and - inevitably leads to invasions of the public’s privacy and loss of control of their - technology. Conservancy plans to address this issue in the manner that the - FOSS community knows best: put one foot in front of the other, and work to - create FOSS for every possible task that users want to accomplish. For IoT - devices, this means creating alternative firmware in the same manner that - OpenWRT has done for wireless routers.

+ cameras, police body cameras, cars, AV receivers, and televisions. We + believe that building an alternative firmware for one of these classes of + devices — or joining our work with an existing alternative firmware project + that is struggling due to lack of sources available — will lead to + more palatable software freedom for users of these device.

+

Limited Success of Alternative Hardware

@@ -72,9 +40,13 @@

Nevertheless, we remain ever-cognizant that FOSS succeeded on servers, laptop, desktop, and wireless router computers precisely because - users could buy commodity hardware at any store and install FOSS. There is - no complete, operational base operating system for most IoT devices on the - market.

+ users could buy commodity hardware at any store and install FOSS + alternatives to the vendor-provided software. Throughout the history of + FOSS, most new users who seek to experience software freedom want to do so + with their existing devices first. Many don't even know much about the + issues involved in software liberation until they've already purchased + hardware. Conservancy therefore believes support of alternative + firmwares for such devices is paramount.

Demonstrating the power of software freedom

@@ -111,21 +83,23 @@

Second, depending on what subindustry (i.e., specific class of devices) seems most responsive to increased enforcement activity and willing to provide compliant source releases quickly, we will launch, coordinate and - fund an alternative firmware project for that class.

+ fund an alternative firmware project for that class, or, if appropriate, + merge our efforts with an existing alternative firmware project for that + class of device.

Leveraging on Increased Enforcement

-

Conservancy plans to select a specific - violation and engage in litigation. Based on past experience, we expect - that the press and attention to that ongoing litigation will yield - increased responsiveness by violators throughout the industry. (A similar - outcome occurred after our litigation in 2006.) This expected change in - behavior will open opportunities to replicate the OpenWRT approach in - another embedded electronic subindustry. Fast action will be necessary; - most IoT products have an 18 month lifecycle, so we seek to quickly - identify the right subindustry, gain compliance there, and move on to the - next phase.

+

Conservancy already plans to select a + specific violation and engage in litigation. Based on past experience, + we expect that the press and attention to that ongoing litigation will + yield increased responsiveness by violators throughout the industry. (A + similar outcome occurred after our BusyBox-related litigation in 2006.) + This expected change in behavior will open opportunities to replicate the + OpenWRT approach in another embedded electronic subindustry. Fast action + will be necessary; most IoT products have an 18 month lifecycle, so we seek + to quickly identify the right subindustry, gain compliance there, and move + on to the next phase.

Funding Firmware Liberation

@@ -153,10 +127,10 @@ infrastructure for the project. The goal is to build a firm base that draws volunteers to the project. We know that sustaining funding over long periods for a grassroots hobbyist activity is quite challenging; we seek to - use this grant to bootstrap and catalyze interest and contribution to the - project. Ideally, Conservancy would run the project with a single full-time - staffer for about a year, and achieve a volunteer base sufficient to - reduce funding to one part-time staffer.

+ bootstrap and catalyze interest and contribution to the project. Ideally, + Conservancy would run the project with a single full-time staffer for about + a year, and achieve a volunteer base sufficient to reduce funding to one + part-time staffer.

Criteria for Device Selection