I don’t understand the RYF and FSF certifications requiring that the user can not audit nor modify some of the firmware code. This sounds like marketing doublespeak that might come from Google or Microsoft to justify their invasive practices. Either the code is auditable and user-changable or it isn’t. I can understand perhaps Purism maybe making compromises to make the device be possible by maybe accepting some blobs and building-in measures to keep them benign through hardware. I can understand government regulations. But I can’t understand RYF or FSF saying that ‘we need to lock you out’ for any reasons that are legal or ethical per their respective stated purposes for existing. Free means free, ‘not like free beer but more like freedom of speech’ (paraphrasing Richard Stallman). That pretty much defines all we need to know. The firmware is either free or not free. It’s an easy binary choice. Coming from either of these organizations, the justifiable reasons to lock anyone out have to be non-existant. Coming from Purism, perhaps a compromise justification could be appropriate.