Very well reasoned. Thanks!
That’s because the proprietary firmware is on board the device. Is that better? Are you aware that, at least for the wifi+BT device, the OS on the Librem 5 reads that proprietary firmware from the wifi card’s flash memory and then loads and activates it??? Is there a big difference to pmbootstrap? Yes, because it’s not responsible for that decision … because that decision was made by Purism rather than the user so it’s arguably a “less free” situation. Nonetheless there is proprietary firmware on both devices.
To be clear: the above difference is at OS installation time. That’s why I talked about the “Device + OS”. In the case of “Device + OS”, it’s the same in the sense that both will be running similar amounts of proprietary firmware to function. The difference is that Purism made the choice for the user in regard to the Librem 5. Is that more freedom or less freedom???
In regard to the FSF and RYF, I don’t think the Librem 5 should get that label. Why?
- Purism’s “intention” IMO is to have the firmware be upgraded after delivery. Purism makes the firmware available (just like Debian has a non-Free repository that the user can “opt-in”) and on the forums participants (including Purism devs) often recommend upgrading/reflashing the firmware.
- The proprietary firmware on the wifi card is read off the card and activated/run on the card by the OS on boot. i.e. The OS intentionally participates in having the wifi card run the proprietary firmware. i.e. Is there any difference between the OS reading the firmware from the disk vs. reading it from the onboard memory? Not in my opinion.
You probably know all that since you started a thread on it here: In defense of the FSF RYF certification
[Edit: I’m pinging you because I made some significant edits after re-reading your post. @Skalman ]