Repairability Isn't Enough: Why I'm No Longer Supporting Software Freedom Conservancy
This is a copy of a letter I sent to the Software Freedom Conservancy.
Dear Software Freedom Conservancy,
I am writing to express my disappointment and concern over your promotion of the OpenWrt One. It is disheartening that OpenWrt would develop a device that requires proprietary software for its WiFi functionality, though not surprising - this suggests they do not view software freedom as an ethical imperative. However, what truly let me down was seeing the Conservancy support the announcement without addressing this critical issue. Instead, the focus was on GPL compliance and "repairability."
I've noticed a shift in Conservancy's messaging, tying software freedom to "repairability." This approach is concerning. Richard Stallman didn't launch the GNU project because UNIX was "broken" or needed to be "fixed." He recognized proprietary software as an ethical and moral problem - it subjugated users. Similarly, the primary reason to reject proprietary software today isn't because we can't "repair" it but because it denies us our freedom.
What good is "repairability" if the software controlling the device isn't ours? How can we celebrate GPL compliance when the four freedoms are not upheld for every piece of software the device requires? Software freedom must be a foundational principle in hardware design, not a secondary consideration. Anything less is a compromise we cannot afford.
Update
In media:
-
Open source router firmware OpenWrt ships its own hardware
The SFC's announcement post calls that a win because "Industry 'conventional wisdom' often argues that FCC requirements somehow conflict with the software right to repair." The Conservancy "has long argued that's pure FUD. We at SFC and OpenWrt have now proved copyleft compliance, the software right to repair, and FCC requirements are all attainable in one product!"