In the specified comment GrapheneOS explicitly stated that they have no opposition against non-free binaries and proprietary programs. Doesn’t Free software requires it to not host non free binaries? This is not even firmware

  • max@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    GNU does not dictate what is counted as free meow :/

    in my opinion it can still be counted as free if it plays nicely with nonfree stuff. the whole Free thibg shouldnt dictate that free software is wholly hostile to nonfree softwarez

    • fossphi@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      No, the FSF does define what free (as in freedom) software is. There are different licenses for linking (not running) against non free stuff. But being able to run proprietary programs doesn’t make something not free. Even on GNU certified free distros, one can run proprietary software. It just doesn’t come with it by default.

      There’s also a looser (imo) definition of open source software which doesn’t maintained all four freedoms.

      • max@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        i suppose if ur a language perscriptivist it does, but like… idm free OSes coming with nonfree drivers. theyr doing the best they can in a hostile environment