[HN Gopher] How is the free firmware for the Raspberry progressing?
___________________________________________________________________
How is the free firmware for the Raspberry progressing?
Author : JNRowe
Score : 297 points
Date : 2022-04-12 10:23 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (gwolf.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (gwolf.org)
| bennyp101 wrote:
| Forgive my ignorance, but is this because of proprietary specs
| for HDMI or the graphics chip or something?
|
| As in, they are trying to reverse engineer the blob bits to make
| everything completely free?
|
| Is it a legal problem rather than a technical one kind of thing?
| Terry_Roll wrote:
| I think this is it.
| https://www.raspberrypi.com/news/a-birthday-present-from-bro...
|
| The Broadcom Blob
|
| "In common with every other ARM-based SoC, using the VideoCore
| IV 3d graphics core on the Pi requires a block of closed-source
| binary driver code (a "blob") which talks to the hardware. In
| our case, this blob runs on the VPU vector processor of the
| BCM2835 (the SOC or System On a Chip at the heart of the
| Raspberry Pi); our existing open-source graphics drivers are a
| thin shim running on the ARM11, which talks to that blob via a
| communication driver in the Linux kernel. The lack of true
| open-source graphics drivers and documentation is widely
| acknowledged to be a significant problem for Linux on ARM, as
| it prevents users from fixing driver bugs, adding features and
| generally understanding what their hardware is doing.
|
| Earlier today, Broadcom announced the release of full
| documentation for the VideoCore IV graphics core, and a
| complete source release of the graphics stack under a 3-clause
| BSD license."
| nukemaster wrote:
| >Earlier today, Broadcom announced the release of full
| documentation for the VideoCore IV graphics core, and a
| complete source release of the graphics stack under a
| 3-clause BSD license."
|
| Does this mean the Raspberry Pi might get suspend to ram
| support? That would make building a PDA out of eg the
| Raspberry Pi zero which gets decent battery life feasible.
| sitzkrieg wrote:
| well it also cant selectively turn off cores based on load
| either so
| exikyut wrote:
| I honestly feel like building something like a PDA would be
| easier using a bespoke layout. You can entirely remove
| stuff you don't need (like, say, the VPU (lol)) and save
| battery life. You can also optimize for what you're
| actually going to be using, eg once you've selected the
| type of display you can just support the type of interface
| it will use (SPI perhaps), etc.
|
| FWIW, the Allwinner F1C100s is ~$2, 533MHz, has 32MB RAM
| onboard, and can run mainline recent Linux. It's also this
| easy* to plonk onto a PCB:
| https://www.thirtythreeforty.net/posts/2019/12/my-
| business-c...
|
| (* Yes, "easy" is relative. You'll need a few interesting
| tools and it'll be a tad deer-in-headlights. But you don't
| need a rocket science degree to even fathom the idea.)
| salawat wrote:
| Remember, that's Videocore IV they released, not VI. I'm
| still in the reacquaintance phase of getting familiar with
| HW again, and the devil always seems to be in the details.
|
| Unless you meant to make your PDA out of a <4 RPi.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > Unless you meant to make your PDA out of a <4 RPi.
|
| They did say Raspberry Pi zero. And the pi 3 would IMO be
| perfectly fine for that use case.
| bennyp101 wrote:
| Ah ok, so Broadcom have said it's ok to write the drivers,
| but it's a slow slog to actually get a working set of drivers
| written from scratch?
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| Which is also confusing. What IP would Broadcom be "losing"
| by not releasing the driver code but still making the specs
| and implementation documents public? Is it just an out-of-
| spite decision, something like "I'm not gonna help a
| potential competitor _that much_ "?
| monocasa wrote:
| It's running on a proprietary RTOS.
| als0 wrote:
| From what I know about the graphics industry, it's not
| necessarily about losing your IP, it's about exposing
| your IP for litigation. There are some big patent trolls
| out there as well as some very well known names who will
| exercise their legal department, so the natural thing
| companies tend to do is to keep things closed. Things
| will become more interesting as more open source SoCs
| appear...
| paulmd wrote:
| > What IP would Broadcom be "losing" by not releasing the
| driver code
|
| what if there's some IP they licensed from another vendor
| in there somewhere and it's so entangled (or foundational
| - eg graphics IP, etc) that they can't release it at all?
|
| what if there's some IP that they don't realize is
| licensed from another vendor and they get in trouble?
|
| what if there isn't, but someone else says there is,
| function X is too close to our implementation, and it
| starts a big legal battle? Or what if you run into some
| patent troll who makes a business out of digging through
| code to find anything they can sue over?
|
| what if there's some copyleft code some dumbshit engineer
| copy/pasted and it ends up leveraging the whole codebase
| open?
|
| etc etc
|
| This is a classic situation of "Broadcom gains nothing in
| the next quarter or even the next 5 years from releasing
| the source, only potential (if unlikely) downsides, and
| the only people who will be outraged are a handful of
| nerds who are ultimately irrelevant to _Broadcom 's_ (not
| RPi Foundation's) business".
|
| It is a testament to the success of copyleft that people
| have now embraced that as the default and view
| proprietary stuff with outright suspicion just as a
| default, but a proprietary strategy is both legitimate
| operationally (nobody opens everything) and as a risk-
| mitigation strategy.
| [deleted]
| simias wrote:
| For many companies releasing their code is not something
| they would usually consider, regardless of whether it
| offers a competitive advantage or not. It's just not in
| the culture. They don't see what they have to gain by
| releasing the code, but they worry that it may create
| issues if they do.
|
| So basically if you want to convince these companies to
| open source some of their components "what do you have to
| lose?" is not good enough, you have to give them an
| actual incentive. I suspect that outside of places like
| HN very few people really care about Broadcom's binary
| blob in the rpi.
| wiz21c wrote:
| > They don't see what they have to gain by releasing the
| code, but they worry that it may create issues if they
| do.
|
| If they don't gain/loose anything but we gain something,
| I see a net positive for society.
| JasonFruit wrote:
| My bet -- and IANAL -- is that a corporate lawyer looks
| at the idea and sees no benefit, but an unknown, probably
| small, increase in potential liability. In that case why
| would they approve it? They're not evil, particularly,
| but they are analyzing the situation in terms of risk and
| benefit. Societal benefit doesn't make their list.
| wiz21c wrote:
| > Societal benefit doesn't make their list.
|
| Then I'm happy I'm not such a lawyer.
| skissane wrote:
| Also, the lawyer can skim-read the technical
| documentation, and even if they don't really understand
| it, they can reassure themselves that if there were any
| legal issues in it they would have noticed them. By
| contrast, few lawyers can read code, so they can't give
| themselves the same reassurance with respect to it.
| simias wrote:
| Unfortunately that's not usually a good enough motivation
| for most companies. To be clear, I'm not arguing that I
| don't think it would be a good thing for them to release
| the code (I most certainly would welcome a fully open
| source rpi), I've just been confronted to this mindset a
| lot at work. Closed source is the default, releasing
| anything publicly means going through many hoops and
| levels of hierarchy. If there's no obvious benefit for
| the company and you don't have insiders strongly pushing
| for it it won't happen.
| bluGill wrote:
| > what do you have to lose?"
|
| The problem with this is there are unknowns. Maybe
| nothing, but if there is something none of us have even
| thought of that can be a big loss. It is really hard to
| get past this fear.
| delusional wrote:
| Could be a case that Broadcom bought the software blob
| (in whole or in part) and don't have the rights to
| release is publicly.
| bennyp101 wrote:
| Yea, maybe its a way to get around their legal
| requirements - "here are the ingredients, but you need to
| figure out the recipe kinda thing"
| [deleted]
| 0x0 wrote:
| Also worth noting is the VPU is "the boss" on a raspi device
| and is responsible for bringing up the arm CPU. Without
| functioning VPU firmware, the arm CPU that linux runs on
| doesn't even start. Even if you don't care about graphics at
| all.
| bennyp101 wrote:
| Oh cool, so its more than /just/ graphics code, theres a
| whole load of stuff that they would need to implement?
|
| I can see why they would want that to be their own - make the
| pi 100% open - but sounds like a mammoth task! (especially if
| its only 1 guy doing it?)
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| An annoying side effect is that the (closed) "core OS" that
| the Pi runs on, ThreadX, is owned since 2019 by...
| Microsoft !
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThreadX
|
| https://ownyourbits.com/2019/02/02/whats-wrong-with-the-
| rasp...
|
| Note that the above is specific for the Pi 3 - the Pi 4,
| for instance, doesn't have the issue of a ridiculously
| undersized power connector (2.5W minimum standard for up to
| 13 W demand !!)
| pas wrote:
| > need to implement
|
| I think "need" implies too much. Because, for example, for
| 100% headless applications the open+free version is already
| viable. (But in practice everyone wants to debug using the
| HDMI from time to time, mostly because almost noone has
| NTSC lying around.)
|
| Also, without looking at the docs of the VPU, I'd _guess_
| that most of the blob functionality is needed for advanced
| vector stuff and whatnot (so it 's only needed if you want
| to implement OpenGL/EGL/WebGL).
| bennyp101 wrote:
| Oh so if it's just for ssh then you can boot without the
| raspi-firmware part?
|
| Are there images without it?
| crizzlenizzle wrote:
| There's also the serial console one could use
| SotCodeLaureate wrote:
| No, you can't boot into ARM code without it. ARM part is
| disabled power-on, VPU is a general purpose processor
| really. Basically, on start-up it loads its start.elf
| (i.e. boot application compiled for its instruction set)
| from boot-media, initializes some hardware, then loads
| ARM boot image into common memory, then starts ARM. It
| also exposes some low-level hardware interface via
| syscall-type "mailbox" interface.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| It looks like, per https://github.com/librerpi/lk-
| overlay#what-features-work , yes you can boot to Linux on
| a Pi 2 with composite video and ... it doesn't use the
| word headless anywhere, but I'd be very surprised if you
| can't just omit video outputs completely.
|
| EDIT: Actually, reading more carefully it looks like
| there might be more than one blob and it's not 100% clear
| to me which this replaces, so now I'm less sure that you
| can boot without _any_ proprietary blobs. I 'm not sure
| that you _can 't_, but I can't tell.
| dbrgn wrote:
| Yeah, it's more than just graphics.
|
| Here's an interesting blogpost that kinda explains the
| multiple boot stages:
| https://www.furkantokac.com/rpi3-fast-boot-less-
| than-2-secon...
| ur-whale wrote:
| The question I have, is: given how maker / oss focused the raspi
| is, how (and by whom) did they manage to get locked-in and forced
| to use this proprietary piece?
| nikanj wrote:
| Because frankly the parts available with fully free internals
| are...not very good. How many people care about the raspi
| having decent performance vs how many people care about the
| binary blob?
| tinco wrote:
| By the entire industry. There simply doesn't exist a chip that
| does the things a raspberry pi needs, that is free of
| proprietary software.
| she46BiOmUerPVj wrote:
| beaglebone
| garaetjjte wrote:
| If running without blobs is your priority, various Allwinner
| or Rockchip SoCs would be much better choice. (they run with
| upstream kernel, and aren't GPU with ARM core added as an
| afterthought)
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| RISC-V is probably the closest, but they're going to need to
| get faster to compete with ARM.
| klelatti wrote:
| As it's the GPU that seems to be the issue here is there a
| RISC-V based SoC with an open source GPU driver?
|
| Worth noting too that there is an open source driver for
| Arm's own Mali GPUs.
|
| https://www.collabora.com/news-and-
| blog/blog/2021/06/11/open...
| aseipp wrote:
| The GPU is not the issue. There are open source OpenGL ES
| drivers available in upstream Mesa right now, that work
| with upstream kernel DRM driver, and for RPi4 users
| there's even a Vulkan driver.
|
| It's been pointed out elsewhere but briefly there is a
| VLIW processor (the "VPU") that is initially in charge of
| the entire boot sequence before handing off control to
| the main ARM cores; the bootcode.bin firmware for RPi
| devices is exactly this code. This includes things like
| bringing up PLLs and the on-board UART before handing off
| control to the ARM core where "userspace" code runs.
|
| There are many free RISC-V implementations, and several
| free GPU drivers for various hardware families, but there
| is no combination of the two in any meaningful sense
| right now. If I had to guess I'd say ImgTec is probably
| one of the ones you could expect to pop up in an SoC
| somewhere, since I doubt ARM or Qualcomm are going to
| license their GPUs outside their families... ImgTec
| recently started contributing some code to Mesa but
| otherwise have historically been pretty hostile. So the
| immediate speculation doesn't look great at the moment
| but who knows what could happen.
| my123 wrote:
| The VPU isn't a VLIW at all, it's an interesting RISC.
|
| Arm GPUs are also licensable by anybody, they were x86
| phones with them back when those were still a thing.
| aseipp wrote:
| Interesting, thanks for both the corrections. Curious,
| but do you know if there anyone still using Mali outside
| the ARM-licensed family at this point? I guess there
| haven't been many new entries to the mobile market for so
| long the GPU pairings seem natural, now...
| bo1024 wrote:
| Isn't it right that there's barely any hardware at all out
| there that can run fully foss?
| megous wrote:
| Not true at all. Pinephone runs on a SoC with no binary blobs
| user has to install.
|
| And the SoC can do all the stuff my Rpi 2b does, and more
| (has a proper audio codec, for one, real gigabit ethernet,
| working suspend to ram, etc.), does suspend to ram,
| accelerated video decoding, and has much more open
| documentation... Rpi 2b's soc is pretty terrible usability
| wise comapred to A64.
| squarefoot wrote:
| It is actually the other way around since a lot of other
| boards use no proprietary blobs, either out of the box or can
| be easily adapted to do that. The RPi Foundation are without
| doubt good at making hardware, but they're even better at
| letting users believe they're the only player in that field.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| That's because the idea for the RPi came from Eben Upton, who
| worked at Broadcom at the time - and no one else had better
| chips or (and here it gets crucial) would make them available
| at the low quantities that were initially expected without
| serious up-front money to get access to technical documentation
| and experience.
|
| Creating a computing platform is - no matter the CPU vendor -
| one hell of an effort, often involving bunches of binary blobs
| of questionable quality, NDAs, buggy, outdated or plain lacking
| documentation and lots of money. The more effort you can save
| yourself (such as by using a product you already have
| experience with), the better.
| joezydeco wrote:
| RPi1 was also built around a surplus SoC that was originally
| targeted for a set-top video player platform but failed to
| get any buyers.
| nukemaster wrote:
| My understanding was the raspberry pi was supposed to be the
| modern zx80: cheap above all else to make it easy for kids to
| get a computer.
| q-oscillator wrote:
| And it pretty much is, especially the older versions of the
| Pi. It just has a large number of uses beyond education.
| Crosseye_Jack wrote:
| Ben Upton worked for Broadcom during the time of the creation
| of the Pi. Broadcom gave them a sweetheart deal on the
| processors, they took it.
|
| The Pi was initially created as a cheap way to get kids into
| computer science, they didn't foresee the closed off parts of
| the processor being an issue towards that goal. They just
| wanted a cheap computer for kids to learn on that wouldn't be
| the end of the world if they broke it. I mean who is gonna want
| to run an Open Source VideoCore?
|
| THEN, us "grown up" geeks came along and was like "OHHHH, a
| cheap Linux SBC... Yes Please..." and brought out the initial
| run on day one.
|
| So ever since then they were kinda stuck with Broadcom unless
| they wanted to redo a ton with another manufacturer.
|
| To Bens and Raspberry Pis credit, they have managed to get
| Broadcom more open than they were, Initially we didn't even
| have a data sheet for the processor.
|
| Edit: Pre-coffee brain even more prone to typos then when I'm
| caffeinated...
| mattl wrote:
| Eben Upton
| Crosseye_Jack wrote:
| My bad, Pre-Coffee brain had Ben stuck in it for some
| reason.
| 3np wrote:
| There must be more to it than that, considering all the
| generational change otherwise.
| wronglebowski wrote:
| I disagree, pioneering SBCs on a non-profit budget means
| this one hitch on binary blobs is a very low priority for
| them.
|
| Working with the same vendor consistently to iterate on a
| very similar design each time is ideal.
| Crosseye_Jack wrote:
| > considering all the generational change otherwise
|
| Sorry, my brain is not fully in gear yet. Do you mean the
| changes between the generations of the Pi?
| userbinator wrote:
| _They just wanted a cheap computer for kids to learn on that
| wouldn't be the end of the world if they broke it._
|
| I've always said that an old PC (but not _too_ old, because
| retrocomputing has driven up prices then) is probably the
| best for that. Can be bought for next to nothing or even
| free, has extensive compatibility with lots of software, and
| also decades of detailed documentation.
| MrRadar wrote:
| Ebon's reasoning at the time was that he wanted a
| _standardized_ computer you could build a curriculum
| around, that was cheap enough that schools could issue to
| kids without fear of them breaking it, and which was small
| enough the kids could take home with them in their
| backpack. (This was obviously well before Chromebooks and
| iPads took over the education market.)
| Crosseye_Jack wrote:
| Well there is a benefit to using new hardware, No issues
| with aging caps, no issues with sourcing peripherals
| (Unless a pandemic comes along messing up everyones supply
| chains), no issues with compatability.
|
| By only have a single platform to support out the box you
| are getting rid of having to support multiple hardware
| configurations which could cause headaches for newcomers on
| day one. Remember it was basically an attempt to remove the
| roadblocks of getting people into CS. One of those
| roadblocks is getting people to "hello world".
|
| IMO its a simailar reason to why Arduino worked so well,
| sure we could push people to using any other
| microcontrollers but by having single known board (atleast
| to start with) everyone is in the same boat and makes it
| eaiser (and cheaper) to offer support and lowers the
| barrier of entry imo. Basically is solving the
| fragmentation issue.
|
| Is it the best way to learn? That depends on how you look
| at things. IMO it makes it a great stepping stone to get
| into the field which can then lead on to other
| things/interests, but you will probally learn more earlier
| on by skipping the "spoon feeding" stage but that (imo)
| comes with a steeper learning curve which could drive
| people away from the subject.
|
| I know I delayed my own learning of the NRF platform to
| start with simply because at the time the toolchain was a
| PITA to get started with (esp on an unclean machine that
| had other compilers installed) so on a number of times I
| got fed up trying to get to "hello world" I would put it
| down and come back to it at a later time. However that
| process of less handholding did teach me more about the
| toolchain.
| glowingly wrote:
| >Arduino
|
| I generally agree on the simple, common approach being a
| great draw for Arduino and its related education. I was
| going through school around the time when arudino took
| off. IMO, older vendor toolchains were just painful by
| comparison. Licensed compilers ($$ license), janky IDEs
| that were death by 1000 cuts, having to learn different
| port masks (etc) for initializing different
| microcontrollers, IO libraries for each microcontroller,
| proprietary programmers (devices to load compiled
| software to the microcontroller). IMO, this is where
| FPGAs are largely still stuck in nowadays.
|
| Though it probably wasn't all that bad. My experiences
| with the bad side of things largely stems from the PIC
| lineup. I still have trusted configurations of MPLAB + C
| Compiler that work vs others I just could never get
| working. Still have the PIC programmer. Some earlier arm
| tooling (armv6 era) was quite like this, too. Luckily, it
| has all opened up quite a bit. Either arudino-level ease
| of use or even drag and drop. The latter did exist in the
| armv6 era, since I have a Freescale Kinetis that operates
| like that, minus the simple IDE & compiler of the
| arduinos.
|
| Simple IDE also means simple install, operation, and
| licensing to me. There may be a great paid IDE for the
| Kinetis, but the moment I have to start juggling more
| logins, node/floating license files, web-only
| environments, etc, I just remember it as time wasted on
| superfluous nonsense.
| Crosseye_Jack wrote:
| For me these days I value "Time to hello world" over many
| other things which is why I would rather use PlatformIO
| when I'm using a platform & framework it supports even if
| its lagging slightly behind the latest framework version
| from the vendor directly.
|
| But looking back, back in the day when we had to walk
| uphill both ways in the snow to compile and write (get
| off mah lawn! :-P) I'm grateful I did learn "how the glue
| was made" instead of just using something ready made. But
| older grumpier me just wants to get shit done so I'm
| happy those days are pretty much behind me, but I'm ready
| to dust them off again if it was really needed.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| That isn't something schools can buy several hundred of
| (with a stable platform) and not worry about electrical
| testing liability etc. Which is the main intended use case
| of the Pi.
| nazgulsenpai wrote:
| As I understand it, it was a SoC that was already in production
| by Broadcom for set top boxes so using an "off the shelf" SoC
| would reduce the time/cost required to bring the original Pi to
| market. I imagine there would be less risk to the manufacturer
| in this case since, if the Pi proved a failure and didn't move
| the expected units, the SoC could be repurposed for STBs.
| rkangel wrote:
| The Raspberry Pi was basically only possible because of the
| Broadcom SoC. It is a capable chip, with approximately the
| right set of functionality for an SBC and at a good price
| (because it was already manufactured in volume). It was only
| available for something like the Raspberry Pi because Eben
| Upton worked for Broadcom and so could get to buy the chips and
| buy them at volume pricing - normally you'd have to have an
| established buyer relationship and be able to guarantee to buy
| far more than the Pi team was able to or expecting.
|
| It's also worth remembering that originally the Pi _wasn 't_
| maker/OSS focused - the goal was to have a computer cheap
| enough to be used for computing education in schools. In effect
| a modern day successor to the BBC Micro.
|
| In the context of the goals and constraints the "minor" binary
| blob required to make it run was irrelevant. Even more so as
| basically every other similar SoC has _exactly the same issue_.
| The Broadcom parts presumably continue to remain competitive
| for their capability level and so they keep getting used but
| now thanks to the success of the Pi there is the will and
| capability of going full OSS.
| cf141q5325 wrote:
| Shout out again to the interesting perspective on the topic from
| the IpFire Forum. Some excerpts:
|
| >Now, everybody is looking for a cheap ARM board with performance
| and loads of features. The Raspberry Foundation is a charity that
| pays probably no tax at all, but somehow is selling lots and lots
| of boards at an absolutely "amazing" price.
|
| >Amazing because nobody else in Europe can compete with them.
| Paying no taxes helps. The second step is that they have almost
| completely outsourced their software development. They call it
| Open Source-ed, but that is not the same.
|
| >Over many years, there has never been a release of that piece of
| hardware that was supported by a mainline kernel. Neither Linux
| nor any other of the *BSDs. They simply do not care what software
| runs on it.
|
| https://community.ipfire.org/t/arm-sbc-support-discussion/26...
| Post number 4
|
| Earlier discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30504615
| a9h74j wrote:
| > Paying no taxes helps.
|
| Interesting. Similar to the argument that certain forms of aid
| given to developing countries can undercut would-be local
| suppliers.
| cf141q5325 wrote:
| Yes, i took away something similar, see the original
| discussion. I had big companies being able to sell at a loss
| as an example, but it boils down to the same thing.
|
| I found it interesting because there is no clear solution to
| this, no "bad" party. Having something like the raspberry pi
| is obviously absolutely amazing. But being able to produce
| without a profit margin makes it hard to compete. And this of
| course shapes the market as a whole. Differently put, how are
| we ever going to get a open source hardware platform when any
| such project wont be able to compete with the raspberry?
| [deleted]
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > Over many years, there has never been a release of that piece
| of hardware that was supported by a mainline kernel. Neither
| Linux nor any other of the *BSDs.
|
| I think the stuff does get mainline support over time, though?
| That's no different from what goes on in x86 land, where
| installing Linux on cutting edge hardware is always painful in
| some ways and some stuff can even take years to get properly
| supported. (I'm especially thinking of Intel's mobile platforms
| from quite a few years back.)
| klelatti wrote:
| Just in case anyone is confused by the 'paying no taxes' bit.
|
| Indeed Raspberry PI Ltd (formerly Raspberry PI Trading Ltd)
| paid no tax on its profits in 2020 (the most recent filing
| year) but not because its a charity - which it isn't - rather
| because they got tax deductions for R&D. I strongly suspect
| that these deductions would be available to any other firm that
| spent the same amount on R&D.
|
| And of course they did pay a significant amount of VAT (sales
| taxes) on these boards.
|
| In short the tax insinuation bit of this is very likely
| completely unjustified.
|
| Edit: I've read the rest of the post this comment quotes from
| (on the IPFire Forum) - it goes on to accuse RPi of tax evasion
| (i.e illegality) - seemingly because they are annoyed that they
| don't make it easy to run their software on it. This is not an
| 'interesting perspective'.
| cf141q5325 wrote:
| The interesting perspective i took away was how something
| like the raspberry pi shapes the market as a whole whether
| intended or not. See comment in the original discussion if
| you are interested.
|
| In short, even if not through tax advantages, it is very hard
| to compete with a charity (or even the "free" open source
| developers it attracts as a results). As such it is difficult
| to imagine how a competing open source hardware would emerge.
| I found it interesting since there is no clear cut solution
| to this. Or even the consensus that the state is somehow bad,
| after all, having a raspberry is absolutely amazing. It just
| has consequences.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > it is very hard to compete with a charity
|
| Ignoring the split between the Raspberry Pi Charity and the
| Raspberry Pi For-Profit company, charities have more
| regulation and restrictions than for-profit companies, no?
| Wouldn't it be _easier_ to compete if you didn 't have to
| at least pretend to operate a public-good charity?
| klelatti wrote:
| Why is it hard to compete with a charity - which by
| definition doesn't have access to capital in the way that a
| commercial firm has?
|
| Maybe RPi just knew what their market needed and delivered
| it very effectively?
| joosters wrote:
| _And of course they did pay a significant amount of VAT
| (sales taxes) on these boards._
|
| End consumers pay VAT, the company doesn't.
| klelatti wrote:
| In the UK companies pay VAT to HMRC.
| joosters wrote:
| Of course they pay the VAT to HMRC. They collect the VAT,
| since it's paid to the company when you buy something off
| of them - customers don't make a separate payment to the
| government every time they make a purchase! But the
| essential point is that every penny of the VAT from their
| sales comes direct from a customer.
| klelatti wrote:
| Unlike income tax and employees, customers are not
| legally liable for VAT on goods they buy, rather
| companies are liable for VAT on what they sell. So it's
| not just a question of accounting and collection. VAT is
| a tax paid by the company.
|
| Of course ultimately the costs fall on the customer as do
| all costs. Would you say that RPi doesn't pay for
| components because the customer ultimately pays for these
| too?
|
| The original post said that RPi paid no tax which is
| without doubt factually incorrect.
| chris_va wrote:
| That's true for income tax as well
| 542458 wrote:
| The tax complaints don't really hold water to me. A competitor
| could spin up a nonprofit if they wanted or pivot to nonprofit
| status. But they don't, because the opportunity costs and
| limitations of being a nonprofit are nontrivial. There are
| successful competitors, both for and non profit - BBC Micro,
| Orange Pi, BeagleBone, etc.
|
| And re: OSS, I don't remember anybody complaining that Lenovo
| (for example) "outsources" their Linux thinkpad OS. The
| raspberry pi foundation is using open source (and some vendor
| closed source) software in full compliance with its licenses.
| The post you linked complains that the code quality of the
| raspberry pi modifications is "bad" and can't be integrated
| into mainline Linux, but that doesn't make it not open source.
| "Open source" has no obligation to be high code quality.
| MarcScott wrote:
| So many comments about Raspberry Pi Foundation being a charity
| here, and therefore... Let's just be clear, it is a charity and
| owns Raspberry Pi Limited. The profits from RPL help fund the
| charitable work done by RPF.
|
| It's like complaining that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
| was funded from profits from Microsoft, and therefore Windows
| should be FOSS software.
| nocman wrote:
| > It's like complaining that the Bill and Melinda Gates
| Foundation was funded from profits from Microsoft, and
| therefore Windows should be FOSS software.
|
| Except that no one confuses Microsoft with the Bill and Melinda
| Gates Foundation. I'm sure that a lot of people are either
| unaware of the existence of Raspberry Pi Limited, or don't know
| the distinction between it and the Raspberry Pi Foundation.
|
| I'm not saying Raspberry Pi Limited should not exist, or should
| not sell hardware. I'm just saying that it is understandable
| that some would be unaware of and perhaps surprised its
| existence and the distinction between it and the Foundation.
| inherently wrote:
| the only problem mentioned was video stuff. does this mean that
| for a headless server use case it's usable?
| fsflover wrote:
| No: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31000966.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Yes: https://github.com/librerpi/lk-overlay#what-features-
| work
|
| (Albeit, currently only on a Pi 2)
|
| EDIT: Actually, reading more carefully it looks like there
| might be more than one blob and it's not 100% clear to me
| which this replaces, so now I'm less sure.
| cleverca22 wrote:
| lk-overlay contains many different projects
|
| using the vc4-stage1, vc4-stage2, and rpi2-test projects
| together, you can do the entire boot chain (dram init and
| loading linux) using open source code
|
| other projects act as demo's or tests on how to run custom
| code at various stages, but not actually boot linux on the
| arm core many of those demos work on the the entire pi
| model range
|
| pi3 support is only broken due to arm side problems, which
| could be fixed by just using a different bootloader
|
| and the https://github.com/librerpi/rpi-open-firmware
| codebase can already boot linux headlessly on both pi2 and
| pi3, it uses a different arm bootloader
| bri3d wrote:
| Another interesting part of the Raspberry Pi VideoCore blob is
| that it implements DRM for Raspberry Pi products: the Pi Camera
| V2 has an Atmel ATSHA204A CryptoAuthentication chip on it and
| uses an HMAC+nonce challenge/response system to authenticate with
| the VideoCore blob when it goes to bring up the CSI interface.
| Marcan42 dumped the keys from the VideoCore blob and documented
| the system a few years ago.
|
| According to the Pi Foundation, this is because simple
| peripherals are too easy to clone and they need to recoup their
| investment in accessory design.
|
| I was reminded of this while I was researching Twitter
| speculation yesterday that something similar is done for the DSI
| interface for displays. I wasn't able to substantiate this - the
| FKMS (FakeKMS/FirmwareKMS) and proprietary Raspberry Pi video
| drivers, where link negotiation and backlight control is done in
| the blob, do only support specific displays. However, it's
| unclear to me if this is due to driver support or an intentional
| lock-in. The open-source KMS driver (not yet usable on Raspberry
| Pi 4) where link negotiation and backlight control is done in the
| kernel, of course supports anything with a driver.
| nimbius wrote:
| pretty offtopic but i gave up on waiting for Pi to be open for
| anything more than business. their shady history of pushing
| microsoft repos (and crypto keys) without my consent in their
| Raspbian OS was the last straw.
|
| for those who arent amicable with such a 'charitable'
| definition of open, pine64 has existed for quite some time. the
| rock platform easily handles my docker workloads.
|
| https://www.pine64.org/rockpro64/
| [deleted]
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> According to the Pi Foundation, this is because simple
| peripherals are too easy to clone and they need to recoup their
| investment in accessory design._
|
| I find this completely fair, but then maybe don't call yourself
| a "charity" and an "open platform" and just be upfront that you
| need to lock down your hardware to recoup the investment.
| codedokode wrote:
| No, this is not fair. If making accessories is not
| profitable, then don't make them. Instead release the
| documentation and let others make the accessories.
| lloydatkinson wrote:
| Yeah, this is a dick move for sure. I had no idea the
| camera was locked down like this. Just plug in a better
| quality USB camera and you've bypassed the whole
| protection. Pointless.
| Wingy wrote:
| I understand this as it being profitable to make and sell
| accessories, but not to engineer the accessories. The
| engineering is done in the hope of being able to sell the
| accessory. If they can't sell the accessory, the
| engineering investment is purely loss.
| codedokode wrote:
| But on the other side if you have a proprietary interface
| then there will be less accessories and the product will
| be less attractive for customers.
| megous wrote:
| So, not a charity...
| codeflo wrote:
| You do realize that most charities sell some things,
| right?
| megous wrote:
| They don't have to be profit oriented, though. They just
| have to balance the money flow.
| tjoff wrote:
| And what is protecting your investment to ensure it is
| not a massive loss, if not balance their money flow?
| detaro wrote:
| Charity doesn't mean "has to waste money".
| jwr wrote:
| Anyone can make a camera, there are no restrictions. What
| is difficult are the algorithms for processing the data
| that comes off the sensor. The RPI foundation developed a
| complete solution (camera+software) and they don't want to
| see copycat cameras make use of their investment in image
| processing software.
|
| I find this to be completely fair game.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Why can't the hardware provide access to the raw sensor
| data and let freedom-respecting software deal with it?
| bri3d wrote:
| It does. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-
| media/patch/0d4dc...
|
| You can think of the VideoCore ISP firmware task as a
| proprietary application and the Pi Camera as a hardware
| security dongle for that proprietary application.
|
| You can choose not to run that application and access raw
| data from CSI if you'd like, but if you want to run the
| special ISP firmware application, you need the hardware
| dongle.
|
| I think I feel the same way about the DRMed blob as I do
| about the Pi in general: I understand why the Pi folks
| did things the way they did, I don't think it's unethical
| by any stretch, but the situation is disappointing and I
| would prefer the alternative.
| dTal wrote:
| This is the same argument for closed-source GPU drivers.
| "Oh, my special secret sauce algorithms!"
|
| Nah. If you want the cred from being open source, be open
| source.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| It would be way less of a problem if they would commit to
| removing the DRM by a certain date. At the very least, they
| should commit to doing that when they stop supporting the
| platform and making the proprietary addons to it.
| MarcScott wrote:
| The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charity. It just owns
| Raspberry Pi Limited which is a tech company. Don't confuse
| the two. RPL does the hardware and software stuff. RPF is
| focused purely on education and outreach work, and can do
| that because RPL provide the money.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| If it were just the peripherals...
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31001880
| Angostura wrote:
| Can you name a charity which doesn't cover its costs and
| manages to keep operating?
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| According to Google, the Pi Foundation explicitly does not
| call itself or the Pi a "open platform". The only hits are
| from the forum, where people are pointing out that it isn't.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| > _then maybe don 't call yourself a "charity"_
|
| The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charitable organization
| registered with the Charity Commission for England and Wales.
| [0]
|
| We can quibble over whether we think they're doing work in
| the best way, but by authoritative definitions they are a
| charity.
|
| [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi_Foundation#F
| oun...
| paulmd wrote:
| This is the part where HNers learn that simply being
| registered as a charity doesn't mean jack shit.
|
| Hospital systems that make billions of dollars a year of
| profit are charities! Companies that own billions of
| dollars of real estate holdings for no purpose except
| speculation are charities!
|
| Non-profit simply means that profits aren't paid out to
| shareholders. It doesn't mean you can't make enormous
| profits and accrue vast amounts of wealth.
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| There is no "jack shit" about the Raspberry Pi
| Foundation's charitable status.
|
| It's really not in question.
|
| They've even relatively recently split the business in
| two (Foundation and Trading Company) to further protect
| the charitable aims of the Foundation and avoid the ugly
| Ikea situation.
|
| There is also (in the UK and in the USA as I understand
| it) a distinction between not-for-profit and charitable
| status.
|
| In the USA AFAIK most self-declared non-profit
| organisations follow or are advised to model themselves
| on the Georgia Nonprofit Corporation code. But not all
| non-profits are charities (all charities are non-profits,
| but as you say, it does not mean they don't _make_
| profits from time to time; they just don't return them to
| shareholders).
|
| In the UK we have slightly different non-profit codes
| like the CIC (Community Interest Company). They are very
| distinct from charities.
| samhw wrote:
| Notoriously in England, public schools are charities. My
| school made god knows how much by offering a few
| bursaries and thereby counting itself as a charity. My
| best friend's school, old Slough Comp, is possibly one of
| the greatest forces of anti-charity and anti-
| egalitarianism in the country and yet is still - IIRC - a
| charity. It means absolutely zero whatsoever. Perhaps
| other countries are different.
| stuaxo wrote:
| For people in the US "Public School" in the UK are
| actually private.
| akiselev wrote:
| And "Slough Comp" is a tongue in cheek name for Eton
| College
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> "Public School" in the UK are actually private_
|
| That's confusing as hell. Can anyone please explain?
| samhw wrote:
| Yeah, sure. When they started[0], the aristocracy were
| educated by private tutors, and these schools _actually
| were_ for the poor (ok, fine: for 'poor', read 'slightly
| less than royalty'). That context has obviously changed a
| lot since, and it now feels a bit silly.
|
| Also, while that person's comment is correct, it's worth
| noting that _not all_ private schools are referred to as
| public schools. That name is only for the oldest, mostly-
| boarding schools that were big players when the system
| was (finally) formalised in the 19th century. The vast
| majority of private schools would just be called private
| schools. And then state schools are the genuinely-free
| ones.
|
| _[0] ETA: Mostly around the Tudor period I believe; i.e.
| by Shakespeare 's time most if not all of them were well
| established._
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| Yes -- but also all "Public" schools were not "Church"
| schools.
|
| Basically there is a time when education was almost
| exclusively monastic; those who were not taught privately
| were taught by religious institutions.
|
| The public schools were free of that influence to a
| greater extent.
|
| There is one more tier of school you don't mention which
| sits somewhere below "public": the "commercial school".
| There were some of these owned by the livery companies,
| and were a tier of schools that were created along the
| lines of the public schools but before the school system
| was fully established. Most of them were not fee-paying
| but were funded by donations or livery company charitable
| funds. They taught largely vocational skills (but
| professional ones rather than technical ones); parents
| sent their kids to commercial schools to bring back the
| knowledge to professionalise the family business or to
| set them up in a trade.
|
| (I went to a school that was originally founded this way,
| but was a part-state-owned grammar school by the time I
| got there a century later)
| samhw wrote:
| Oh wow, thanks for adding that detail. I didn't know
| about practically any of that. That's a fascinating side
| of things: I _thought_ there must have been a slight
| lacuna in my understanding, that not _all_ the educated
| classes could have employed private tutors, and that
| definitely fills in a missing link for me.
|
| Though it adds another small question: aren't/weren't
| most public schools severely Anglican? I know my school
| was quite radical at the time for admitting Jewish boys,
| so that always painted a picture of a not-exactly-super-
| secular institution, but maybe I've got the wrong
| impression in some way...
|
| Also, those commercial schools sound a bit - subtracting
| for a moment the fee-paying aspect - like the German
| technical education system which I've always liked the
| sound of. I wish we had something more like that today,
| though obviously now it wouldn't - or shouldn't - be fee-
| paying.
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| > Though it adds another small question: aren't/weren't
| most public schools severely Anglican?
|
| Yes -- implicitly.
|
| (sidebar: I am not sure that, when public schools really
| first sprang up, it was even possible to educate people
| of Jewish descent; the situation for Jews in england in
| particular was deeply complicated by their unique
| relationship to the state as established by the Magna
| Carta. Either way, they were not landowners by law and
| therefore probably not that interesting to the church.)
|
| But at any rate as Wikipedia says, the first public
| schools appear to have been generalised and detached
| versions of grammar schools, which were the schools run
| for wealthy families that were attached to churches and
| monasteries.
|
| Those schools started off teaching young people the
| skills needed to function in church life, but eventually
| they seem to have become so generalised for various other
| trades that they separated themselves in an
| administrative sense.
|
| They'd have had lots of clergy doing the teaching
| nonetheless, I imagine, simply because really only clergy
| had access to education at that point.
|
| I am not sure how "technical" the school I went to ever
| was in its earliest form (we did have technical schools
| in the UK for a while as a precursor to the comprehensive
| system).
|
| I get the impression it was commercial in the sense that
| it taught reading and writing necessary for conducting a
| business, maths necessary for bookkeeping and
| engineering, and some science.
|
| (The livery company that founded it still owns half of it
| -- the outside half, literally)
| pessimizer wrote:
| School run by _members of the public_ rather than by the
| state. So instead of public /private, state/public.
| samhw wrote:
| No, it's really as simple as in my own reply: the
| American meaning is exactly what the term conveyed when
| 'public schools' began, centuries before today's 'state
| schools' existed _anywhere_.
|
| It was a school _that was open, in principle, to anyone_.
| Think 'free as in speech' vs 'free as in beer', but with
| the added sense - like 'public transport' - of being
| democratic and round-about-accessible to all.
|
| As for the US: when it began, fee-paying schools were the
| dominant mode, and there wasn't really an aristocracy
| with private tutors to distinguish it from. So it never
| needed the 'public' - and when government schooling
| became a thing, it pretty naturally took on the 'private'
| qualifier instead.
| implements wrote:
| Actually, I think it was that a subset of private fee-
| paying schools were set up to prepare students for
| positions in 'Public Life' ie politics, military, clergy,
| civil service - basically running the country aka "The
| Ruling Classes".
| samhw wrote:
| Nope. Like I said a moment ago[0], it really did just
| mean 'free as in speech', like not-quite-free public
| transport suggests. Your explanation is certainly very
| neat and plausible - all the makings of a folk etymology
| - but it happens not to be correct.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31008161
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| Run by -- and for -- the public not by/for the church.
|
| The state did not run schools when these were
| established. It's much older than that as a term.
| gerdesj wrote:
| Actually, it's worse than that! Fee charging schools can
| be known as both public and private schools. Those terms
| are never used in the UK for schools funded by the state.
| A state funded school will be labelled as Primary,
| Secondary etc. Some are known as State schools. Some are
| Academies (a bit more complicated but largely publically
| funded) etc. Basically in England anyway, Public and
| Private schools are fee charging schools. The name does
| not refer to how they are funded.
|
| I went to a private school aged nine to 13 and a public
| school 13 to 18. Then I went to a polytechnic, which
| changed its name after a year and then two (three?) years
| later it was a university! Whilst in sixth form (17/18)
|
| So the message here is that the public/private
| distinction for school nomenclature here in England and
| perhaps some or most if not all the UK doesn't mean what
| it does elsewhere, unless it does except where it doesn't
| ... except on a weekend when all bets are off. Clear?
| Jolly good. As you were, carry on!
| samhw wrote:
| Thanks for adding that detail! Also for being the one
| person who replied ITT with a non 'apocryphal' etymology.
| I was getting ready to dig into another "public schools
| are called public because you can see them from the
| road!" pseudohistory...
|
| And, more importantly, thanks for adding detail on the
| state school side of things, which I suppose I left out
| of my answer because it's not something I know about. It
| was definitely sorely needed.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Consider also how in the USA, "public" companies are
| actually private.
| OJFord wrote:
| In brief, read ' _for the_ public ' rather than ' _by
| the_ public '.
|
| Another example - public houses (aka pubs) are generally
| for-profit private (or large chains may be public in the
| sense of being listed) companies that take your money in
| exchange for real ale and good food; not social housing!
|
| The more confusing thing is that we now (see history in
| sibling comments) have 'private schools' too. What you
| call 'public' are 'state' schools here, or something more
| specific where it's implied ('grammar', 'comprehensive',
| 'academy').
| OJFord wrote:
| It doesn't mean 'absolutely zero' - the key point is that
| it must have charitable aims and objectives which it
| strives to achieve or encourage.
|
| For example, a university student union can sell you beer
| in the SU bar and run events to raise cash in order to
| further its aims in education and student experience etc.
| mattbee wrote:
| A UK registered charity has to have a "public benefit
| requirement" and has some fierce governance and reporting
| requirements, it's more than just a non-profit company.
|
| https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-benefit-rules-for-
| chariti...
| paulmd wrote:
| It's the same in the US, but in both cases, "public
| benefit" is nebulous and unenforceable. If you just say
| "we're advancing public health!" that's a charitable
| purpose, even if the majority of what you're doing is
| profit-seeking and completely unrelated to that.
|
| Much like how CEOs get wide discretion as to what
| "advancing shareholder interests" means - maybe it's in
| the long-term interest of public health to build a huge
| amount of real-estate holdings that you could
| (hypothetically) use to generate revenue and advance
| public health (uh huh) some time in the future. That's
| perfectly fine for a non-profit to do - they really are
| just a corporation that doesn't pay out profits to
| shareholders, they keep it all internally.
|
| Examples: the Susan Komen foundation. College endowments.
| Hospitals. Etc.
|
| In my time at a non-profit, we had what we called our
| "contribution margin" which was equivalent to profit in a
| for-profit company, and that was tens of millions of
| dollars a year. Like I said, we had big real-estate
| holdings etc which is where all the profit went year-
| over-year. And we actually did do important public health
| work, but we were also essentially a contractor for
| various state and federal agencies and definitely did
| turn a profit.
|
| The only requirement in the US is that at least 5% of the
| activity must be charitable in nature - that's not a
| typo. So spend 5% on some studies and reports and the
| rest becomes your personal slush fund. It's a fantastic
| little arrangement.
|
| https://www.ncfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Five-
| Per...
| mattbee wrote:
| Yeah that's not at all the same thing as a UK charity,
| which has to spend all of its money on charitable
| purposes.
|
| They are governed by a board of volunteer, unpaid
| trustees who can be personally liable for its misconduct.
|
| Here's the Raspberry Pi Foundation's entry on the
| register:
|
| https://register-of-
| charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/chari...
| paulmd wrote:
| > a UK charity, which has to spend all of its money on
| charitable purposes.
|
| No.
|
| > The most popular charities in the UK spend anything
| between 26.2% and 87.3% of their yearly income on
| charitable causes, according to the best available data.
|
| https://www.theweek.co.uk/fact-check/98581/fact-check-
| how-do...
|
| Also that doesn't include accumulation of wealth in
| general - it's perfectly fine to sock away a billion
| dollars (or pounds) because in principle that money is
| going to go to charitable activities in the future.
| Sometime. But there's no legal requirement that
| "sometime" ever come, so it's just a slush fund.
|
| Again, please don't think of charities as being charities
| in the traditional sense of feeding nuns and orphans. It
| may be better to think of them as "non-shareholder
| corporations". They are corporations, which make money,
| and accumulate wealth, which is controlled by the board.
| The difference is that the purpose of the accumulation of
| wealth isn't for the benefit of shareholders, but in
| principle it's for the public. In practice it is a slush
| fund for the board.
|
| You've got tons of UK universities that build up huge
| endowments, right? Do you think they're the only ones who
| do that? And not everybody is using that money for
| scholarships, as it were...
| mattbee wrote:
| I know how to think about UK charities, thanks mate, I am
| trying to offer perspective, experience and knowledge
| that's different to yours.
|
| I'm a trustee of a small UK charity, I do their books,
| I'm in touch with lots of other trustees and in no way
| can these companies be run as a "slush fund for the
| board". The regulatory regime demands too much
| transparency for that to happen at any scale.
|
| > The most popular charities in the UK spend anything
| between 26.2% and 87.3% of their yearly income on
| charitable causes, according to the best available data.
| ... > Also that doesn't include accumulation of wealth in
| general - it's perfectly fine to sock away a billion
| dollars (or pounds) because in principle that money is
| going to go to charitable activities in the future.
| Sometime. But there's no legal requirement that
| "sometime" ever come, so it's just a slush fund.
|
| Yes, UK charities are allowed to spend on fundraising,
| investment and may build up reserves. Some of those
| reserves might be restricted, for specific purposes even
| within the definition of their charitable purposes, and
| that needs particular accounting. But that money is
| absolutely locked up for their registered purposes, it
| can't go to personal benefits, and their boards of
| _unpaid_ trustees are on the hook for mismanagement.
|
| If they spent every pound they received on their
| purposes, lots of charities would cease to exist (or
| exist 100% on grants from other organisations). That
| would certainly suit a lot of simple-minded people's
| perspective on "what a charity should be" but it would
| shrink the sector to almost nothing.
|
| (I once did data entry for Oxfam, entering direct debit
| donations posted to the organisation - a few angry people
| liked to use those appeal envelopes to protest about the
| fact that Oxfam advertised at all).
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| Thank you for this.
|
| Part of the problem with the cynical view of charities
| that you're responding to is that if it goes
| unchallenged, it actually becomes practically impossible
| to help charities improve their charitable efficiency.
|
| If people think all charities are BS, they stop donating,
| and it becomes meaningless to say charity X is doing a
| better job on a structural level than charity Y, which is
| for sure important information for donors.
|
| I've worked on some stuff for a social organisation that
| is now a registered charity, and it is amazing how deep
| the tendrils of the regulations actually go -- the extent
| to which things have to be structured to avoid conveying
| benefits that aren't the objectives of the charity.
|
| (I also applaud you for doing what you do)
| jonp888 wrote:
| There are two parts of the Raspberry Pi organisation - the
| Foundation(a charity) and the Trading company(not a
| charity).
|
| The hardware is developed sold by the non-charitable part,
| and recently announced that they prioritise orders from
| industrial customers over private ones. You cannot expect
| them to act like a charity - they aren't one.
| analognoise wrote:
| The only reason the charitable foundation is able to
| exist at all is industrial interest, though? That seems
| fair.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I don't object to the use of "charity" nearly so much as
| "open platform" in this case.
|
| A charity that gives away some things but not other things is
| still a charity. A platform that is partially closed is not
| fully open.
| [deleted]
| dTal wrote:
| Doesn't this mean the the Pi foundation has an incentive to
| discourage open firmware, since it will eliminate the
| enforcement for their DRM?
| bri3d wrote:
| Not really. The firmware is basically protecting itself - the
| closed source firmware contains proprietary image processing
| code (ISP) for the camera which Pi Trading paid for, so it's
| only supposed be used with the Pi Camera.
|
| A complete open source re-implementation would either not
| support ISP, or would include a non-proprietary version of
| the same or similar code, at which point they shouldn't care.
| monocasa wrote:
| There's also protecting access to the hardware video
| codecs, in order to account for licensing fees. They might
| care about that if the MPEG-LA starts being a dick about
| it.
| punnerud wrote:
| If the same key could be integrated into video stream, we could
| have a way to avoid deep fakes?
|
| Is the video manipulated? Calculate the hash/key, and use a
| public key lookup for RPi to verify.
|
| To avoid hacking of the key, embed every camera with a unique
| private key.
| digitallyfree wrote:
| One method would be to have a unique key burned into the
| image sensor by the manufacturer. That key will be in turn
| used to cryptographically sign the raw signal output from the
| sensor to verify that the image was indeed generated by that
| specific sensor.
|
| Now if the image is compressed, this is obviously moot. But
| for important documentation and the like, it's feasible to
| store the signed raw signal to confirm that the image was
| taken by that specific camera. Of course, this depends on the
| security of the keystore, the trustworthiness of the
| manufacturer, etc.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| This isn't doable. Nothing prevents you from gluing or
| projecting a screen directly into the sensor, after tone
| mapping the image properly. There is no winning. It
| wouldn't even be expensive!
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Yes, that has been repeatedly pointed out. And yet the
| industry still did it and your digital cables carrying
| video aren't going to work properly without the HDCP DRM.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > One method would be to have a unique key burned into the
| image sensor by the manufacturer. That key will be in turn
| used to cryptographically sign the raw signal output from
| the sensor to verify that the image was indeed generated by
| that specific sensor.
|
| This would be horrible for privacy, although somewhat
| mitigated if the camera program/app discarded the signature
| by default.
| digitallyfree wrote:
| Yeah it would, and ideally it should be possible for the
| user to choose to include the signature or not in their
| images. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see this type
| of tech being the norm in the future, perhaps in a sneaky
| way like what they did with printers and digital
| watermarking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Ident
| ification_Code). We may even see this in other integrated
| sensors like a MEMS mic with a built-in AD on the
| silicon.
| gspr wrote:
| With a central authority to issue unique "authentic camera
| keys"? What dystopian nonsense you're suggesting!
|
| Because without such an authority, what's to stop the
| deepfake source from generating its own unique key? And we're
| back to square one.
| [deleted]
| dmurray wrote:
| You don't need a centralized authority. Every manufacturer
| can issue their own keys.
|
| I take a digitally signed photo and tell you "I took the
| photo with this tamper proof Canon camera, and I can prove
| it by taking more photos of any subject you ask for and
| signing them with the same key".
|
| If you worry that I made an authentic-looking counterfeit
| Canon camera (but you're satisfied I couldn't have
| extracted the private key from a real one), Canon can
| confirm that they sold a camera with that key.
| gspr wrote:
| But what prevents me from saying I'm a manufacturer of
| tamper proof gspr cameras, that just happen to generate
| deepfakes?
|
| Surely there will be enough cheap devices out there that
| not everyone can be expected to remember the names of
| venerable manufacturers? I personally have no idea who
| makes the camera in my phone.
|
| Anyway, the point is moot. The analog hole is still
| there, you'll just feed the pixels straight from the deep
| fake generator into the Really Real Tamper Proof Canon's
| CCD.
| irjustin wrote:
| possible to hardware hack to create a deep fake and simply
| pass it though the camera CCD to get it be crypto signed.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Or just take-a-picture-of-a-picture. It's possible to do
| such things much more convincingly than when Trump tweeted
| out that classified satellite pic in 2019 with a flash
| visible in the middle of it.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Satellite imagery suffers from sunlight glint that
| oversaturates the CCD. That isn't a mark of a fake.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Sure, okay. I was just following what I had thought to be
| the widely accepted narrative on this, eg:
|
| "CNBC reported that Trump was shown the photo during the
| briefing. A flash visible in the center of the image
| suggests Trump or someone else took a photo of the
| original image -- which Hanham says might have been the
| intelligence briefing slide."
|
| https://www.npr.org/2019/09/05/758038714/can-president-
| trump...
|
| In any case, the point is that with proper staging, you
| could absolutely take a picture-of-a-picture in a way
| that would result in the image being marked as genuine
| and untampered, even accounting for the signing info
| including a GPS-based time- and position-stamp and
| including camera details like focal length.
| [deleted]
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| What stops someone from pointing this camera at a really high
| resolution display showing anything they want? The analog
| hole goes both ways.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| You could even just remove the lens and glue a screen to
| the sensor.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-12 23:00 UTC)