Xtreix There are no phones with open-source firmware to my knowledge.

It would be great if there were, but that is not the state of affairs.

For a while the GNU fork of Android, called "Replicant", sort-of ran on some phones, though many "supported" models couldn't do Wi-Fi, or couldn't do Bluetooth, etc., because there was no open-source firmware for those functions.

Here is a recent status update from Replicant: https://blog.replicant.us/2024/03/replicant-status-and-report-of-the-37c3-and-fosdem-2024-conferences/

Perhaps their approach will eventually bear fruit (that would be great), but at present it's not really resulting in usable phones.

      Xtreix Major portions of the firmware are open source since the main boot chain components are based on littlekernel, the secure core and TEE run Trusty OS and the Titan M2 has firmware/hardware based on OpenTitan. That doesn't mean it's all open source firmware just that it's heavily based on it, which is a lot more than other hardware.

          starkle Operating systems need to include firmware updates to be remotely secure. The hardware and firmware is still there for one of the insecure operating systems they endorse not updating it. GNU and FSF promote a bunch of highly insecure operating systems and products which causes real harm to users. No need to link this misinformation here. We don't want their endorsement since it simply means an OS is insecure. They even require removing security warnings about insecure out-of-date firmware/microcode because they consider it promoting non-free software. That's scammer behavior. We want nothing to do with it.

            It is said to be “de-Googled,”

            GrapheneOS never uses this awful terminology. Perhaps they should get information about GrapheneOS from reliable sources.

            but includes a way to download and install the nonfree Google Play program.

            Irrelevant. Does not make it non-open-source. Their stance of providing a way to get proprietary software making software proprietary is nonsense. Providing firmware updates doesn't make an OS not open source. They could more legitimately complain about the fact that not all driver libraries across the supported hardware are open source yet, but they will be eventually. Their claims about all these topics are full of outright lies, not simply inaccuracies.

            de0u I thought the Replicant project had been more or less dead / obsolete for years and so I haven't looked into them for a long time, which is still pretty true in my mind given that the latest version is still based on Android 6. Thanks for sharing that link, I've read it and while I certainly find it interesting, I don't have enough perspective on the situation to judge it properly.

            Yes, I think that would be great too.

            GrapheneOS Thank you it's very positive. I'd forgotten about TrustyOS !

                  Xtreix Android 12 is the oldest Android version with security support. Android 14 QPR3 is the only one with full privacy/security patches. Replicant even excludes shipping firmware updates which were available for the ancient, highly insecure devices they support. GNU/FSF approval requires insecurity through not shipping firmware updates and covering up that they exist by even removing warnings about non-updated firmware, etc. They require misleading users about security for approval. Every OS approved by them is both insecure and misleading users about it, by design.

                      GrapheneOS Yes exactly. Purism consciously used a firmware that can't receive security updates simply so GNU wouldn't disqualify them from certification for providing "non-free" firmware updates, which is total nonsense. It shows GNU/FSF and Purism's dishonesty towards their users. All Purism's statements are their website are marketing.

                        includes a way to download and install the nonfree Google Play program.

                        Trisquel (example) includes tools to download and install Microsoft Edge.

                        An operating system that restricts what users can install (=use) beyond strictly technical limitations, is a non-free operating system 🤯.

                        matchboxbananasynergy Are you referring to "Apps" mirroring Play Services, or something else?

                        I was referring to Apps, yes. Keep in mind that I mentioned this not because I believe in it, but I was speaking from the perspective of how GNU would see this as "facilitating the installation of non-free software", which is a ridiculous nitpick.

                        matchboxbananasynergy If you're referring to that, then GrapheneOS by GNU's standards was fine when it had links to get them on the site and not a way to get them from within the OS itself?

                        Apparently not, considering how they mention that Android (and any of the OSes mentioned on their website) cannot be endorsed because it has proprietary blobs and they nitpick with LineageOS specifically because they have a guide on their website on how to install Google apps, which is never mentioned or linked inside the OS once installed.

                        For the record, I love and support FOSS projects as much as possible (whether it be "free as in speech" or "free as in beer"), but I also agree that GNU (and by extension the FSF) is incredibly outdated in the way they think and operate.

                            noguest Now who is misleading users?

                            GNU/FSF misleads users about security and privacy to get "100% free" approval like hiding warnings of non-updated firmware, hiding important information from the user is always a worrying behavior and should not be accepted, in this context their "100% free" approval is just a buzzword and contains no substance.

                              @qw2b1 Removed your statements about RMS because it's not relevant to this thread and we don't want people to harass him.

                              @jacobb It's you who has misconceptions and misunderstandings about this topic. Trying to dismiss people debunking misinformation and scamming as them not understanding it is ridiculous. Not shipping important security updates or even blocking users from applying them through their OS themselves is the opposite of defending user privacy and security. They even demand hiding missing security patches from users, directly supporting misleading users about security and scamming them. It fits right into how companies like Purism spread huge amounts of misinformation and scam people with false marketing. It's directly supported by this cult. There isn't even a consistent ideology or purpose behind it but rather simply obedience to nonsensical rules where closed source is fine as long as it can't be updated, where somehow blocking updates makes things better.

                              Locking this thread because it's an attractive nuisance bringing toxicity to the forum. We don't want to have to stop one side targeting RMS with personal attacks and another side pushing misinformation about GrapheneOS and other topics to promote his views.