[coreboot] FSP 2.0 headers in coreboot

[Nico Huber]

Ok, I'll try to break this loop here. You are repeating the great bene-
fits for a user (that I agree to) even if a blob is involved. And I keep
asking why it should happen on our master branch (I don't see how we
would take something away by not maintaining everything. Also, I never
tried to exclude all blobs). It seems somehow we talk past each other.

Nico

On 10.05.2018 23:26, Julius Werner wrote:
>> You really seem to miss the point of free software.
> 
> Okay, now this is starting to get personal again, let's please not go
> there. You too have been among those who spoke out against that in that
> derailment thread recently. It's insulting to insinuate that some of us
> don't understand or don't care about free software just because we're
> working for a big company. You also don't need to educate me about the
> spirit of the GPL or the fundamental travesty of jumping back and forth
> between blobs and GPL code a dozen times during a single boot and calling
> it okay because it's "technically not linking". I am aware of these things
> and I'm not happy about them either. But there have been blobs in most
> boards that were added to this project since before I started working on it
> and there will keep being blobs for the foreseeable future. You are not
> going to convince Intel to open-source their FSP by yelling at fellow
> coreboot developers about it. It's the reality we live in. This discussion
> started (as I understood it) about how we can make the blob situation we
> *are* living with a little better, so let's keep it focused on that.
> 
>> As long as everybody
>> adheres to the copyleft, you can do things on your own. If a blob ends
>> up being only useful for a single board, ok. Should somebody be able to
>> sell his product with it, sure. But why should the community maintain
>> that shit (partially on the shoulders of volunteers) if it doesn't pro-
>> vide what free software provides?
> 
> "That shit" allows people to build custom firmware for the hardware that
> they bought, which I think is a very important and worthwhile benefit on
> its own. For Chromebooks, a whole little ecosystem of custom ROMs and build
> instructions has developed around this. Do you want to take that away from
> everyone just because some of the blobs may be mainboard specific? (And
> again, as far as I am aware most blobs aren't really tied to a specific
> mainboard, they're just SoC support which may or may not have been written
> to include whatever peripheral support a particular mainboard needs. You
> are really just complaining that peripheral support which the existing
> mainboards didn't need is not implemented yet, which is a situation that
> can happen just as well on a fully blob-free board.)
> 
> It's not just free software when you can port it to a completely new
> mainboard, in the same way that the coreboot core code is still free
> software even though you can't automatically port it to any new chipset.
> You can still add features or make changes to customize behavior for an
> existing board. You can make it boot your own operating system with custom
> calling convention, add some code signing or measuring framework, or make
> it play the Jeopardy melody on the speaker while it's booting. That, too,
> is a benefit of free software.
>