\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{url}

\widowpenalty=300

\title{The road to hardware free from restrictions: how hardware vendors can
  help the free software community}

\author{Justin Baugh\\\small{Senior systems administator}\\\small{Free Software
    Foundation} \and Ward Vandewege\\\small{Senior systems
    administrator}\\\small{Free Software Foundation}}

\date{February 2007}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

\section{Introduction}

The computer hardware market is steadily evolving towards a more standardized
ecosystem based on unrestricted hardware. Already, smaller vendors are
realizing increased sales by ensuring that their hardware works optimally with
free software and that drivers are easy to develop and maintain. Industry
leaders have already been realizing these benefits in the server market, but
have yet to make the same commitment for consumer hardware.

Vendors who understand this evolution will reap the benefits of leveraging the
free software community. Vendors who fail to realize this will be left behind
in the marketplace by more nimble competitors.

\section{Free software drivers}

One of the biggest problems facing the free software community today is the
lack of free software drivers for common hardware. Significant advances have
been made in providing drivers for GNU/Linux systems, either by tacit support
from manufacturers or by an arduous process of reverse engineering. Two
citadels of binary-only drivers still remain: wireless network interfaces and
video cards. There is wide community support for free software drivers for all
hardware.\footnote{The Free Drivers Petition to hardware producers currently
has over 5,000 signatures. See
\url{http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?zxcv7nm}.}

Almost all current wireless cards and USB devices either require binary
firmware loaded by a free software driver, or require the use of Windows
drivers via a free software emulation layer (Ndiswrapper). Ndiswrapper is an
inefficient use of processor cycles. The binary drivers it requires are often
of poor quality, which can lead to stability problems and support headaches.

Most video cards won't perform at their full potential without binary drivers,
especially in 3D applications.

The usual problems with proprietary software apply. Bugs in the proprietary
drivers can result in a security vulnerability in the system itself that cannot
be corrected without vendor intervention. Bugs noticed by the community can
take months to be fixed---if they are fixed at all. Vendors regularly ignore
the concerns of users who have already purchased their product. For instance,
in the specific case of the binary NVidia drivers, there have been several
high-profile security vulnerabilities that remained unpatched for far too long.

Hardware that requires binary firmware with a free software wrapper simply
circumvents the issue by moving all intelligence into a black box that the user
cannot open. This is merely smoke and mirrors---it creates the illusion that
the hardware vendor respects freedom while the concerns of the community remain
marginalized.

\subsection{How hardware vendors can help}

\begin{itemize}

\item Hardware vendors could require that full low-level technical
documentation be made available for the hardware that goes into their products.
This documentation should be made available in an unrestricted way, as used to
be common practice.

\item Vendors could encourage the development of free software drivers for
their hardware either by writing the drivers themselves or by supporting
community development efforts.

\item Vendors could work with the community to get these drivers included in
the standard version of the kernel, Linux. Doing this makes driver maintenance
and upgrades much easier for developers as well as users.

\end{itemize}

\subsection{How will this improve the situation for the vendor?}

Hardware that is well-documented and supported by free software drivers will be
significantly more useful to both the members of the free software community
and the wider public. A reputation for hardware free of restrictions equates to
positive product reviews, a stronger brand image and increased
sales.\footnote{``In the survey of 1,800 young people, released by Cone Inc.
and AMP Insights, two Boston marketing companies, 89 percent said they are
likely to switch from one company's brand to another if the second brand is
associated with a good cause.'' Chronicle of Philanthropy, 2006.11.09, Peter
Panepento}

Respecting the users' freedom is a mark of an ethical company.\footnote{Free
software is a matter of freedom: people should be free to use software in all
the ways that are socially useful. See \url{http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/}.}

\section{Proprietary BIOS locks}

There are a number of serious issues with the proprietary BIOSes that are
shipped commonly with consumer systems from the big vendors. Two particularly
glaring problems are:

\begin{itemize}

\item The lock on the use of minipci cards in laptops

Several major vendors use code in the BIOS to lock down their machines'
otherwise completely standard minipci slots so that they only accept a couple
of pre-approved extension cards. This is a major problem, particularly because
the pre-approved cards are often manufactured by vendors that are hostile to
free software, like Broadcom.

\item Disabling of the hardware virtualization functionality in modern CPUs

It has been reported that some machines with CPUs supporting hardware
virtualization have those features disabled in the factory BIOS. One vendor
claimed that virtualization had not been tested on its product, which is why
the feature was disabled.\footnote{See ``Business support forums - nw8440 - VT
  disabled in bios,'' \url{http://lnk4.us/za3D}.}

It is worth noting that no OEM motherboard manufacturer implements similar
restrictions.

\end{itemize}

\subsection{How hardware vendors can help}

The vendor should not deliberately cripple hardware through BIOS locks or DRM
in the BIOS.

\subsection{How will this improve the situation for the vendor?}

By removing artificial restrictions, users will be free to use their hardware
to its maximum potential, including the freedom to combine hardware as they see
fit. To a large tech-savvy community like the free software community, this
freedom makes or breaks purchasing decisions.

\section{Free BIOS support}

There is a movement underway to replace proprietary BIOSes with a free BIOS.
The major community effort is behind LinuxBIOS.\footnote{See
\url{http://linuxbios.org}.}

\subsection{How hardware vendors can help}

\begin{itemize}

\item Hardware vendors could support the community by providing access under a
permissive license to all the low-level hardware documentation necessary to
port a free BIOS to their systems, and ideally offer engineering support.

\item Hardware vendors could ship hardware with a free BIOS instead of a
proprietary BIOS. The free software community values hardware that can be run
fully with free software from the BIOS up, and is willing to pay for it.

\end{itemize}

\subsection{How will this improve the situation for the vendor?}

It is in the hardware vendors' best interest to support a free BIOS, because it
offers a number of advantages over proprietary BIOSes:

\begin{itemize}

\item Most of the code is written in C, which is much easier to maintain than
assembly code.

\item It runs almost entirely in 32-bit protected mode.

\item Rather than continuing design decisions made in the 1970s, it is based on
modern architecture.

\item Revolutionary new features are possible, like embedding an entire kernel
in the ROM chip.

\item Boot-up time is only a couple of seconds, which is a fraction of the time
an average proprietary BIOS takes.

\item The vendor is not dependent on one proprietary BIOS vendor for any
changes and fixes to the code.

\item Since it is licensed under the GPL, there are no patent or per-board
royalties, or licensing fees.

\end{itemize}

\section{The ``Microsoft tax''}

It is nearly impossible to purchase consumer hardware without a Microsoft
operating system pre-installed. The vendors that do offer such systems usually
discourage their purchase by hiding them. Vendors that pre-install GNU/Linux
often only list the option for select systems. In neither case do vendors
commonly provide a discount, even though they save money by not including an
OEM Microsoft license.

\subsection{How hardware vendors can help}

\begin{itemize}

\item Vendors could offer ``no operating system''as an option on all their
systems, including consumer systems, and particularly laptops.

\item When ``no operating system'' is selected, vendors should reduce the price
of the system by the cost of the Microsoft OEM license.

\item Vendors could offer some GNU/Linux distributions as an option on systems,
including consumer systems, and particularly laptops. These systems should be
tested for subsystem functionality like ACPI.

\end{itemize}

\subsection{How will this improve the situation for the vendor?}

By selling and promoting more hardware without a pre-installed operating
system, or with a GNU/Linux operating system, vendors will become less
dependent on Microsoft. Millions of people are already using GNU/Linux systems.
The free software community will undoubtedly support vendors that sell hardware
without subjecting their customers to the ``Microsoft tax.'' Lower costs to the
vendor mean lower prices and increased sales.

\section{Digital Restrictions Management}

The free software community opposes the imposition of Digital Restrictions
Management (DRM). As current software implementations of DRM have proved
insecure, arduous and unmanageable, this anti-consumer technology is
increasingly moving into hardware. Traditionally, hardware vendors have
encouraged innovative uses of new technology and media, not restricted them.
This culture of innovation is what the entire computer hardware industry is
based on.

\subsection{How hardware vendors can help}

Hardware vendors could resist pressure by the media companies to stifle this
innovative culture, and actively lobby for laws that protect consumers' rights.

\subsection{How will this improve the situation for the vendor?}

The free software community will flock to any vendor that protects the rights
of the consumer by delivering ``hardware free from restrictions.'' Vendors that
sell equipment that is ``defective by design'' will see their sales and
community support diminished.

By steering clear of DRM hardware, vendors would also remain free to innovate,
rather than having to clear every new product with Big Media.

\section{Conclusion}

By making the recommended changes in any or all of these five areas (free
software drivers, proprietary BIOS locks, free BIOS support, the ``Microsoft
Tax,'' Digital Restrictions Management) hardware vendors will help establish a
mutually beneficial relationship with the free software community. Vendors will
realize increased sales, and the free software community will have hardware
that meets its ethical requirements.

The Free Software Foundation is eager to assist hardware vendors interested in
making the changes recommended in this paper. Vendors should not hesitate to
take advantage of this largely unexplored opportunity.

\vspace{\stretch{3}}

\noindent\small{Copyright \copyright\ 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51
  Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA Verbatim copying and
  distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty,
  in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.}

\end{document}