One of the reasons why I initially ordered the L5 was because Purism said that it intended to get RYF certification for the device, so the certification did matter to me 4 years ago. However, after studying in more detail the RYF certification and reflecting on what it means for the L5, I have concluded that RYF certification is doing little to advance the cause of hardware freedom and the RYF certification requirements and process need to be reformed.
First of all, the language of the RYF requirements is unclear regarding proprietary firmware updates, and when I have written the FSF asking for clarification, they never responded to my repeated emails. I don’t see how any company can work with them, when they don’t respond to requests for clarification on their own requirements.
The second problem is trying to create an arbitrary distinction between hardware which doesn’t change and software which does change. In modern hardware, it is frankly unsafe to not allow hardware to receive proprietary firmware updates, and a modern computing device has half a dozen components that need firmware updates. Basically no modern device can contain WiFi, Bluetooth, cellular modem or GNSS and meet the RYF requirements, so a binary Pass/Fail certification makes little sense. No hardware maker dares release enough info about those components so the community can create FOSS firmware due to the patent situation and I doubt that the FCC would allow hardware makers to ship a wireless transmitting device that users can easily alter to transmit at different frequencies. Now that the POWER10 is using Synopsys’s proprietary DDR4 RAM timing code (just like the NXP i.MX 8M Quad), I wonder if you can even find a modern processor that truly complies with the FSF’s requirements, however there is a huge difference between the normal phone and the L5 and the normal PC and a Raptor system, which is why the binary RYF certification makes no sense in the real world, because it gives no encouragement to companies that are trying to do the right thing.
I posted my ideas about how the RYF certification should be reformed, if anyone is interested. I also like @db579’s suggestion that the FSF make recommendations for what is best available per class.