{% extends "base_compliance.html" %}

{% block subtitle %}Copyleft Compliance Projects - {% endblock %}

{% block submenuselection %}LiberateFirmware{% endblock %}

{% block content %}

<h1 id="software-freedom-conservancy-proposal-for-firmware-liberation-project">Firmware Liberation Project</h1>

<p>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.</p>

<h2 id="gpl-enforcement-needs-follow-through">GPL Enforcement Needs Follow-Through</h2>

<p>Simply enforcing the GPL is an important first step, and Conservancy

  <a href="enforcement-strategy.html">continues our efforts in that

  regard</a>. However, we can

  replicate <a href="/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-strategy.html#brief-history-of-user-focused-gpl-enforcement">the

  success found with OpenWrt</a> <em>only by</em> a substantial

  effort <strong>after</strong> enforcement occurs to turn the compliant

  source release into a viable alternative firmware for the platform.</p>

<p>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.  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 palpable software freedom for users of these device.</p>

<h2 id="limited-success-of-alternative-hardware">Limited Success of

  Alternative Hardware</h2>

<p>Alternative hardware projects remain an essential component of small

  device freedom. Conservancy supports and engages with communities that seek

  to source and build IoT-style devices from the ground up. We’re excited to

  see deployable boards that allow Maker efforts to create new devices.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, we remain ever-cognizant that FOSS succeeded on servers,

  laptop, desktop, and wireless router computers <em>precisely</em> because

  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 <em>until they've already purchased

  hardware</em>.  Conservancy therefore believes support of alternative

  firmwares for such devices is paramount.</p>

<h3 id="demonstrating-the-power-of-software-freedom">Demonstrating the power

  of software freedom</h3>

<p>To many, the benefits of software freedom are abstract. For less technical

  users, the idea of modifying or even reviewing the software on their

  devices is wholly theoretical. For technical users, there is a limited time

  available to invest in the devices they use for their everyday

  lives. Bringing people together to take collective action for the control

  of their own technology is a powerful proposition that has rarely been

  demonstrated.</p>

<p>When alternative firmware projects like OpenWrt exist for IoT devices,

  non-technical users can replace the software on their devices and benefit

  from custom, community-controlled software. Technical users are more likely

  to contribute knowing their efforts will be meaningful.</p>

<p>However, decades of corporate involvement in copyleft have demonstrated

  that without an organized effort, control over one’s own software is purely

  theoretical, even when software has a copyleft license, and

  sometimes <em>even when</em> compliance with the copyleft license is

  acheived. Conservancy recognizes that there is a unique opportunity for

  charitable organizations to step in and change the power dynamic of the

  tech industry for consumers.</p>

<h2 id="conservancys-plan-for-action">Conservancy’s Plan For Action</h2>

<p>Conservancy seeks to fund work on liberating firmware for a specific

  device. This is accomplished with a two-prong approach: first, we will

  leverage increased interest and tendency toward GPL compliance throughout

  the embedded industry to more quickly achieve compliant source releases in

  a particular subindustry.</p>

<p>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, or, if appropriate,

  merge our efforts with an existing alternative firmware project for that

  class of device.</p>

<h2 id="leveraging-on-increased-enforcement">Leveraging on Increased

  Enforcement</h2>

<p><a href="enforcement-strategy.html">Conservancy already plans to select a

  specific violation and engage in litigation.</a> 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.</p>

<h3 id="funding-firmware-liberation">Funding Firmware Liberation</h3>

<p>While we’ve long hoped that volunteers would take up compliant sources

  obtained in our GPL enforcement efforts and build alternative firmware

  projects as they did with OpenWrt, history shows us that the creation of

  such projects is not guaranteed and exceedingly rare.</p>

<p>Traditionally, our community has relied exclusively on volunteers to take

  up this task, and financial investment only comes after volunteers have put

  in the unfunded work to make a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) liberated

  firmware. While volunteer involvement remains essential to the success of

  alternative firmware projects, we know from our fiscal sponsorship work

  that certain aspects of FOSS projects require an experienced charity to

  initiate and jump-start some of the less exciting aspects of FOSS project

  creation and development. (In our last fiscal year, Conservancy funded 160

  contributors to work on FOSS.)</p>

<p>In the initial phase, Conservancy will select a specific

  class of device. Upon achieving compliant source releases in that

  subindustry through GPL enforcement, Conservancy will launch an alternative

  firmware project for that class of device.</p>

<p>Conservancy will seek to fund the time of project leaders and

  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

  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.</p>

<h3 id="criteria-for-device-selection">Criteria for Device Selection</h3>

<p>The IoT device industry moves quickly and we must be prepared to adapt

  based on new information. The first stage in this work will be to carefully

  evaluate and select the device on which to focus for this

  project. Conservancy will evaluate the following criteria in selecting a

  class of devices:</p>

<ul>

<li><p>Do most devices in the subindustry already run a known FOSS system

    (such as Android/Linux, BusyBox/Linux or GNU/Linux)?</p></li>

<li><p>In response to our increased enforcement activity, how many existing

    GPL-compliant source releases are available from how many different

    vendors in this subindustry?</p></li>

<li><p>Is there a known userspace application that runs on Maker-built

    hardware that does the task the proprietary userspace software from the

    vendor did?</p></li>

<li><p>What is the excitement level among volunteers for this

    project?</p></li>

<li><p>What value will hobbyists achieve from replacing the software on their

    device? For example, would they be able to avoid surveillance or add

    accessibility features?</p></li>

</ul>

<p>Finally, Conservancy will be prepared and willing to recognize temporary

  failure and setbacks in a particular subindustry and pivot quickly to

  choosing a different class of devices. This project is ambitious, and we’ll

  be adroit in our approach to ensure success.</p>

{% endblock %}