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.
+ +Simply enforcing the GPL is an important first step, and Conservancy + 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. 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.
+ + +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.
+ +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 + 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.
+ +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.
+ +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.
+ +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 even when 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.
+ +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.
+ +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.
+ +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.
+ +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.
+ +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.)
+ +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.
+ +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.
+ +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:
+ +Do most devices in the subindustry already run a known FOSS system + (such as Android/Linux, BusyBox/Linux or GNU/Linux)?
In response to our increased enforcement activity, how many existing + GPL-compliant source releases are available from how many different + vendors in this subindustry?
Is there a known userspace application that runs on Maker-built + hardware that does the task the proprietary userspace software from the + vendor did?
What is the excitement level among volunteers for this + project?
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?
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.
+ +{% endblock %}