How close does the Pyra's design come to respecting your freedom?

[comradekingu]

Something you're forgetting in your restaurant analogy though is that there is no other restaurant. Only one. The Pandora/Pyra family has no competitor. So, the device needs to be all things to all people OR some of those people will simply be left out, to follow the analogy, to starve

I haven't forgotten anything, that's completely irrelevant. If we are the only restaurant in the world and want to label ourselves as vegan then we can only serve vegan food. Period. Definition of vegan. It doesn't matter that there are no other restaurants at all, there isn't some "since you are literally the only restaurant in the world I guess you can call yourself vegan while still serving bacon" passcard, it doesn't work that way. If you want to be a vegan restaurant you adhere to vegan standards. If you want RYF certification then you adhere to the FSF standards.

So, the device needs to be all things to all people OR some of those people will simply be left out, to follow the analogy, to starve.

Agreed. And this, among many other reasons, is why RYF certification is not for the Pyra. That doesn't mean that RYF doesn't have a purpose, it means that its purpose is not aligned with ours. The Pyra is not a vegan restaurant, it cannot be a vegan restaurant, the best we can do is put little stickers on the menu saying what items are vegan friendly.

Vegan, Halal, Kosher - in a perfect world there are restaurants and vendors aplenty to specialize in each. In this case, the Pyra is the only restaurant sitting at a crossroads with no other options for hundreds of miles in any direction. In this case the proprietor is kind, though, and allows everyone to eat what they need and want there.

And to that end it simply needs to be called "Pyra cafe". We can hang signs saying "vegan options" and "halal beef available" but we cannot call it a vegan restaurant.

For any one group to demand that the Pyra be built, censored and restricted to only service their own needs though - that's simply evil.

Agreed as well. It's a very good thing that that isn't in any way, shape, or form what is happening here. No one is demanding anything. No one is censoring or restricting anything. Christ, I have spent two pages defending a group that I don't agree with simply because people don't understand it, and after all this time you still don't understand it!You cannot adequately argue against something if you do not understand it and if you are still bringing this up then you do not understand it. Have you read what I've written or did you just gloss over it? Serious question because if you don't have time to read everything I can tl;dr; it, but if you did read everything and still don't understand then I need to revise my strategy here.

Actually - I understand quite well and have been reading your posts diligently. Every time this RYF discussion recurs it comes back to the same issue.

Every time you enter it with this level of discussion.

The proponents would like to 'fix' the Pandora/Pyra/device such that it could receive the FYF's RYF certification. The whole thing tends to be promoted by ungrounded idealists who think the world would be a better place if we all followed them to device and software martyrdom where all programmers and artists must live in squalor or on welfare - which would subject them to the whim of political winds. Idealism is simply not ideal.

The irony, complete lack of justification or quotes, is mind-boggling.

A truly free and open device is one on which everyone is welcome to do whatever they so choose - and nothing would be in the way to prevent that (i.e. proprietary drivers).

A RYF-cerfified device doesnt change that. If nothing was done to "prevent" hardware-vendors from shipping only proprietary drivers and solutions, you would be really at the mercy of that someone.

Reality is that no ARM SoC meets their lofty standards. The only mainstream SoC lines that appear to meet their ideals are from a company that many of the same idealists despise for past acts (there apparently is no absolution). I.e. Intel. That ship has sailed.

Hard to tell who your strawman is, but insofar as the RYF goes, all are fine, and mostly only powerVr ones are incapable of doing 3D out of the box that way.Freescale even has a no NDAs to see documentation.

So, cool your jets. I get what you're saying. If a company makes the choice, independently or through coercion, that they should seek the FSF RYF seal of approval, that is their choice to make. FSF is free to NOT approve any company that does not meet their standards.

There is no coercion.

By those same freedoms, though, others of us can state that we consider the idealists attempts to coerce or compel this project into compliance to be a load of unneeded nonsense and voice our support of the project regardless of whether or not it contains uncensored references to paid materials, binary blobs of licensed code or other, "egregious sins". True freedom includes the freedom for artists, inventors and companies to get paid for their work - and to protect their assets. It also includes the freedom to grow and roll your own. It doesn't include a right to demand someone else roll one up and pass it.

There is still no coercion. There still is no freeloader argument.

I figured the restaurant analogy was getting tired and went for other material.

No, you picked something that didnt fit the analogy to try and twist it, much like you could have said the pyra isnt a food-item.

 

[_jr_]

I would be happy if we could at least call ourself a license respecting cafe. We still aren't. Fortunately commander beef has lost interest or changed his nick. His ignorance had me pretty close to sending ED Abmahnungen concerning non GPL conforming redistribution of packages I have a copyright claim in.

 

[diligentcircle]

The pyra also has a modem that is modular to the SoC. You are hard pressed to find a product in the shops today that comes even close to doing this right. In terms of practical freedom, that is important.

That's neat.

@everyone:


Guys, this discussion about restaurants and comparing software to food is completely pointless. The free/libre software movement is not analogous to moral vegetarianism or veganism. All the analogy is doing is causing oversimplifications of the issues at hand.


Choosing to run libre software isn't a moral choice. It's a personal choice which benefits yourself. The moral choice is to refuse to develop proprietary software.

 

[Haraldur]

Here is a question: are all the problematic hardware elements on the CPU board, or are some on the main board? I expect that the WIFI module is on the main board, but, if not, a future CPU board may get us to, or closer to, Freedom.

In any case, I expect the Pyra to be pretty much the most free mobile device available (especially since I find it difficult to take seriously any device without a keyboard -- lacking such would be such an inconvenience to make freedom almost moot).

Also, would it not be cool if Richard Stallman had a Pyra? It should be feasible to remove all non-free software (as WIFI and 3D-graphics are non-essential -- the former can be done with a USB device), and to remove the non-free repository(/ies) for apt-get/dpkg. I believe he has used devices, of a similar level of Freedom, in this fashion before -- I also am almost certain that I once saw a photograph of him with a laptop in a harness so he could use it on-the-move/standing-up: he badly needs a Pyra/Pandora!

I am not a Saint in the Church of EMACS: I use VIM and I use non-free software when I find no convenient alternative, but do consider myself a layperson.

 

[WizardStan]

The proponents would like to 'fix' the Pandora/Pyra/device such that it could receive the FYF's RYF certification.

I'm not arguing with that. I'm not saying one way or the other whether anyone in recent times has tried to get the Pyra changed to achieve RYF certification. That is irrelevant.Personally I'm against RYF certification. That too is irrelevant.

The thing that I am saying, what I have been saying from the very beginning, the thing that I keep saying, is that you do not even understand what the RYF is. How can you adequately argue against something that you don't understand? Sorry to be so blunt but you're like the anti-vaxers, caught up in the same flawed arguments. The unfortunate thing is that you're conclusion is ultimately correct, you're just getting there in completely the wrong way.

A truly free and open device is one on which everyone is welcome to do whatever they so choose

THE RYF DOES NOT PREVENT ANYONE FROM RUNNING ANYTHING THEY WANT ON THE DEVICE. It does not put any restrictions on the end user. Zero. None. Nothing. Nadda. Zilch. Zip. No restrictions. Do whatever the hell you want. That is the point.The RYF certification is a promise by the company that produces it that everything they say it can do can be done with "free" software. That is it. There is no coercion. It is a protection of the users rights, it is a guarantee. If we wish to or must use non-free software then the RYF certification does not work for us. It is that simple.

I figured the restaurant analogy was getting tired and went for other material.

It's only getting tired because you still don't get it.I need to keep using the restaurant analogy because I've got nothing else: if a restaurant calls itself vegan then someone can go in, order anything off the menu, and expect it to be a vegan dish. If someone says they are RYF certified then similarly someone should be able to go to the official repo, download anything they want, and feel safe that it is "free" software.

Guys, this discussion about restaurants and comparing software to food is completely pointless. The free/libre software movement is not analogous to moral vegetarianism or veganism. All the analogy is doing is causing oversimplifications of the issues at hand.

Choosing to run libre software isn't a moral choice. It's a personal choice which benefits yourself. The moral choice is to refuse to develop proprietary software.

Oh piss off. The restaurant analogy is perfectly fine. It doesn't matter why you make the choice you do, the point is that if some company is going to apply a label to themselves then their customers should be able to trust that they adhere to all the things that label entails, whether it be food or software it is exactly the same from an end user perspective: call yourself vegan, don't serve bacon; want to serve bacon, don't call yourself vegan; want RYF certification, promote only libre software; want to include non-free apps in your advertising campaign, don't get RYF certification. It really can't be simpler.Choosing to run non-free software is a moral choice, it is a personal decision of what is right and fair, that's what morality means.

 

[Neelix]

Choosing to run libre software isn't a moral choice. It's a personal choice which benefits yourself. The moral choice is to refuse to develop proprietary software.

Choosing to run non-free software is a moral choice, it is a personal decision of what is right and fair, that's what morality means.

Erm, no it really isn't. If one was deciding whether or not to use illegally obtained commercial software or not, that would be a moral choice, but the choice between running free and non-free software has nothing to do with what's right and fair.

 

[WizardStan]

Erm, no it really isn't. If one was deciding whether or not to use illegally obtained commercial software or not, that would be a moral choice, but the choice between running free and non-free software has nothing to do with what's right and fair.

Fine, I'm not getting into this argument, I'm ill prepared for it. I'm sticking with the RYF definition thing and we can circle back around here when that's understood.

 

[diligentcircle]

Also, would it not be cool if Richard Stallman had a Pyra?

RMS has commented that his previous laptop had a screen that was a bit small for his liking, so I doubt he would be personally interested in something like the Pyra.

I believe he has used devices, of a similar level of Freedom, in this fashion before

Yep, he briefly used an XO laptop. He stopped when it started supporting Windows:

https://www.stallman.org/stallman-computing.html


(An old version of that Web page is where the comment about his previous laptop's screen being a bit small for his liking was, as well.)

the point is that if some company is going to apply a label to themselves then their customers should be able to trust that they adhere to all the things that label entails

Then why are you using an analogy for this? It's a very simple concept: misapplying labels to mislead people is wrong. The analogy with veganism is just making this simple one-sentence idea take up several paragraphs, and causing the discussion to go in directions that just aren't applicable. Analogies are useful tools for explaining complex ideas, but they can easily backfire if taken too far.


And if this is really your talking point, either I've missed something or you must be talking past everyone, because I haven't seen anyone claim that it would be acceptable to slap the RYF logo on something that doesn't meet RYF requirements. I've seen people saying that they disagree with the way the label is defined, and people who feel that the RYF label requirements are too high for RYF certification to be worth it.

 

[rygD]

Choosing to run libre software isn't a moral choice. It's a personal choice which benefits yourself. The moral choice is to refuse to develop proprietary software.

Choosing to run non-free software is a moral choice, it is a personal decision of what is right and fair, that's what morality means.

Erm, no it really isn't. If one was deciding whether or not to use illegally obtained commercial software or not, that would be a moral choice, but the choice between running free and non-free software has nothing to do with what's right and fair.

Actually, it is a moral choice.  Moreso when paying for it.  By funding those that write/sell proprietary software you are telling them, and the rest of the world, that this is the way to go.  You are funding their future projects of this nature, and helping them advertise or spread their software and propaganda.  (That is probably why the FSF has an issue with those writing it.  I don't personally have a problem with people writing or selling proprietary software, however I have a huge problem when users are forced to use it, as with my classes.)  Buy or donate to libre software projects instead. 

It also isn't just a personal choice, since you are providing no incentive for things to be done differently, yet you are empowering those that sell proprietary software.  This hurts other users, especially those that aren't as knowledgeable and aware of the options out there.  They only see and hear about the things that make enough money to be widely advertised, or that are already available, probably preinstalled, on their devices.  

An example of what makes it worse is when uneducated users have been using, for example, a proprietary office suite for a long time and the default file formats used for everything they have done during that time is not compatible with the libre options.  They try to use the libre software and it breaks their documents and such.  They feel they must continue using the proprietary software so they don't lose everything.  

Another problem is if a libre software user is sent a file from a friend/coworker/family member that uses all the proprietary stuff and is incompatible with what they use, or the other way around.  Most people don't care, and the response from others is often "why don't you just use what everyone else does?" which further spreads the proprietary software's control over users. 

I think Stallman even mentioned in one of his essays that he feels it is less wrong to use an unauthorized copy of a proprietary program than to let it restrict the users, or something.  I can't find this right now, and is probably lost in one of the many revisions.  It also seems like he and some others that are heavily involved with the political (I guess) side of free software are ok with other illegal acts, although they would prefer that the laws were changed.  Maybe what I was thinking of before would be stuff they would support, and  maybe it should be (or is) happening now.

I am tired, and what I said probably makes no sense.  I probably used very poor examples and was not very clear.  I might try again later if needed.

 

[FaeMinx]

^ No, I got it. Nice post.


Now I feel guilty...

 

[Neelix]

I am tired, and what I said probably makes no sense.

This is about the only thing in your entire post I can agree with. This sort of utter rubbish is exactly what is wrong with the FSF's whole approach. Demonising commercial software authors doesn't help to sell them on the FSF's philosophy in the slightest and only reflects badly on Stallman, the FSF and anyone else who drinks their kool-aid, as you've apparently done.

-Neelix

 

[WizardStan]

Then why are you using an analogy for this?

Because simply saying it wasn't getting the job done. When I can't explain a foreign concept adequately I reach out to the familiar, typically food or car analogies. When they understand the familiar concept it makes the foreign concept easier to understand.This shouldn't have been a foreign concept, yet for some reason we're spinning in circles trying to explain a simple concept. Even when I reduced the analogy to the single line "be vegetarian, don't serve meat; be RYF certified, don't serve non-free software" there was still some misunderstanding going on.

I haven't seen anyone claim that it would be acceptable to slap the RYF logo on something that doesn't meet RYF requirements.

No, but there's been a number of people saying RYF is blatantly wrong, like objectively wrong. Statements that it is self-contradictory, that it only pretends to promote freedom while simultaneously being highly restrictive. A few times it has even been implied that getting RYF certification would mean that the device CANNOT run proprietary software at all, that the certification would carry the restriction down to the end users, which is about as wrong an understanding of the RYF as you can get. People are saying the RYF isn't good for the Pyra based on a gross misunderstanding of what the RYF is. I disagree with the FSF on a lot of things and agree that the RYF cannot be applied to the Pandora/Pyra but at least I see the purpose of the certification now, and why someone would want it.Grench literally just said that true freedom would let you do anything with the device, which is exactly what the RYF does and if he's still using that as an argument against it then he clearly doesn't understand it.

Bad arguments are my pet peeve.

 

[rygD]

I am tired, and what I said probably makes no sense.

This is about the only thing in your entire post I can agree with. This sort of utter rubbish is exactly what is wrong with the FSF's whole approach. Demonising commercial software authors doesn't help to sell them on the FSF's philosophy in the slightest and only reflects badly on Stallman, the FSF and anyone else who drinks their kool-aid, as you've apparently done.


-Neelix

I disagree with much of what the FSF says, but I do agree with some ideas.  Perhaps you missed the point where I was supporting commercial libre software, just not proprietary software, commercial or not.  How about you tell me where I was wrong?  Does using proprietary software not suggest that tying the hands of users is a acceptable?  

My examples are those that I have encountered.  I have friends and family members that were using Microsoft Office, and felt that they had no other choice.  When they were shown other options it turned out that sometimes things would get messed up when trying to open or modify files using other options since they left them as the default option when they originally saved the files.  It continues to be a problem for me when bringing slides created using Impress to a computer that I do not own for a presentation and everything is messed up when using Power Point.  Anything where a regular subscription fee is paid further takes advantage of users since they can't pay once and continue using the software, even if unsupported.  This is only at the surface level.  Things can be much worse if your software is doing things you don't know about, and that aren't documented.  There are many other potential problems.  I haven't even touched on freedom.

This Flavor Aid sure is delicious, but it has a funny taste to it.

 

[diligentcircle]

By funding those that write/sell proprietary software you are telling them, and the rest of the world, that this is the way to go. You are funding their future projects of this nature, and helping them advertise or spread their software and propaganda.

Yes, using proprietary software has a negative effect on society, but it's indirect. Most free/libre software activists don't consider it to be unethical for individuals to use proprietary. RMS even says so explicitly in his talks about libre software (like this one), when he says that governments and schools are an exception and do have a moral duty to use only libre software.

I think Stallman even mentioned in one of his essays that he feels it is less wrong to use an unauthorized copy of a proprietary program than to let it restrict the users, or something.

I've never seen this in one of his essays, but he says something like this in his talk about libre software: he says that an unauthorized copy of a proprietary program is "almost as nasty as an authorized copy of the same program". I think what he's thinking of here is that unauthorized copies tend to have modifications to break certain malicious features.

Because simply saying it wasn't getting the job done. When I can't explain a foreign concept adequately I reach out to the familiar, typically food or car analogies. When they understand the familiar concept it makes the foreign concept easier to understand.

You know, the weird irony to me is it was this very forum where I learned a couple of years ago to stop depending on analogies so much, because I had made an analogy with veganism to explain the philosophical difference between free/libre software activists and open source boosters, and it completely blew up in my face.

This shouldn't have been a foreign concept, yet for some reason we're spinning in circles trying to explain a simple concept. Even when I reduced the analogy to the single line "be vegetarian, don't serve meat; be RYF certified, don't serve non-free software" there was still some misunderstanding going on.

That's because of the analogy. You're experiencing, first-hand, why depending on analogies too much is a bad idea.

No, but there's been a number of people saying RYF is blatantly wrong, like objectively wrong. Statements that it is self-contradictory, that it only pretends to promote freedom while simultaneously being highly restrictive. A few times it has even been implied that getting RYF certification would mean that the device CANNOT run proprietary software at all, that the certification would carry the restriction down to the end users, which is about as wrong an understanding of the RYF as you can get. People are saying the RYF isn't good for the Pyra based on a gross misunderstanding of what the RYF is. I disagree with the FSF on a lot of things and agree that the RYF cannot be applied to the Pandora/Pyra but at least I see the purpose of the certification now, and why someone would want it.
Grench literally just said that true freedom would let you do anything with the device, which is exactly what the RYF does and if he's still using that as an argument against it then he clearly doesn't understand it.

If there aren't people who are saying that it's OK to misapply a label, why is it so necessary to focus so much on explaining that it's not OK to misapply a label? As you say here, the real issue at hand is what the RYF label means; talking about misapplication of it is just distracting, more so when you use an analogy for the purpose.

 

[TrashyMG]

Yes, using proprietary software has a negative effect on society, but it's indirect.

Well good, my legacy of deviant behaviour continues...  

 

[diligentcircle]

It continues to be a problem for me when bringing slides created using Impress to a computer that I do not own for a presentation and everything is messed up when using Power Point.

Useful to note: if you're willing to forgo animations and sounds and stuff like that, you can convert the presentation to PDF, and it'll be much more portable that way.

 

[WizardStan]

If there aren't people who are saying that it's OK to misapply a label, why is it so necessary to focus so much on explaining that it's not OK to misapply a label? As you say here, the real issue at hand is what the RYF label means; talking about misapplication of it is just distracting, more so when you use an analogy for the purpose.

It seemed people were having difficulty understanding the definition so I figured putting it into context would help: what is the result of actually applying the label, and the reason not to.If you have a better idea that hasn't already been tried, by all means go ahead.

 

[Neelix]

I disagree with much of what the FSF says, but I do agree with some ideas.  Perhaps you missed the point where I was supporting commercial libre software, just not proprietary software, commercial or not.  How about you tell me where I was wrong?  Does using proprietary software not suggest that tying the hands of users is a acceptable?

No, using proprietary software doesn't suggest that at all. There could be any number of reasons to choose a proprietary software package over a "free" one, and there is no way to derive the reasons behind the choice from the choice itself.

I would also add that the majority of users get no direct benefit from being able to inspect or modify the source of a program so in most cases they have no reason to care if the software is "free" or not, as long as it suits their purpose.

My examples are those that I have encountered.  I have friends and family members that were using Microsoft Office, and felt that they had no other choice.  When they were shown other options it turned out that sometimes things would get messed up when trying to open or modify files using other options since they left them as the default option when they originally saved the files.  It continues to be a problem for me when bringing slides created using Impress to a computer that I do not own for a presentation and everything is messed up when using Power Point.  Anything where a regular subscription fee is paid further takes advantage of users since they can't pay once and continue using the software, even if unsupported.  This is only at the surface level.  Things can be much worse if your software is doing things you don't know about, and that aren't documented.  There are many other potential problems.

I'm sorry but exactly how does that relate to whether the programs are free or non-free? These types of compatibility issues are going to exist any time you have different programs which do the same thing in different ways, regardless of whether the programs are free or proprietary. You could just as easily use the exact same argument to argue that the free software option is that one that should be avoided.

I couldn't tell you what libre-office is doing under the hood, and while it's possible to look into that by viewing the source, most people wouldn't understand most of it if they did.

I've also had cases where I've looked for documentation for free software and had no end of trouble finding any.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the benefits of free software, but most of those benefits are only benefits to a select subset of users, or in specific situations. To anyone else there is little reason to care about "software freedom" as the FSF defines it, as long as they have the freedom to use whatever software works best for them.

-Neelix

 

[diligentcircle]

I would also add that the majority of users get no direct benefit from being able to inspect or modify the source of a program so in most cases they have no reason to care if the software is "free" or not, as long as it suits their purpose.

What you say is generally true, but everyone does indirectly benefit from the possibility of anyone looking at the source code, finding a malicious feature, and either raising an uproar about it or forking the program. It is very rare for a developer to even attempt to put a malicious feature in a libre program.

Additionally, it's entirely possible for any user to directly benefit from a program being libre, in one of two ways: they could ask a programmer friend to make a particular change they want, or they could hire a programmer to do so. Most people don't tend to do this, but it's still always a possibility.

 

[comradekingu]

I disagree with much of what the FSF says, but I do agree with some ideas.  Perhaps you missed the point where I was supporting commercial libre software, just not proprietary software, commercial or not.  How about you tell me where I was wrong?  Does using proprietary software not suggest that tying the hands of users is a acceptable?

No, using proprietary software doesn't suggest that at all. There could be any number of reasons to choose a proprietary software package over a "free" one, and there is no way to derive the reasons behind the choice from the choice itself.

I would also add that the majority of users get no direct benefit from being able to inspect or modify the source of a program so in most cases they have no reason to care if the software is "free" or not, as long as it suits their purpose.

As a matter of choice, using proprietary software suggests the user think that is ok. Being out of options is not a choice. Free software, being beneficial to all people, operates on the same principles science does.

My examples are those that I have encountered.  I have friends and family members that were using Microsoft Office, and felt that they had no other choice.  When they were shown other options it turned out that sometimes things would get messed up when trying to open or modify files using other options since they left them as the default option when they originally saved the files.  It continues to be a problem for me when bringing slides created using Impress to a computer that I do not own for a presentation and everything is messed up when using Power Point.  Anything where a regular subscription fee is paid further takes advantage of users since they can't pay once and continue using the software, even if unsupported.  This is only at the surface level.  Things can be much worse if your software is doing things you don't know about, and that aren't documented.  There are many other potential problems.

I'm sorry but exactly how does that relate to whether the programs are free or non-free? These types of compatibility issues are going to exist any time you have different programs which do the same thing in different ways, regardless of whether the programs are free or proprietary. You could just as easily use the exact same argument to argue that the free software option is that one that should be avoided.

I couldn't tell you what libre-office is doing under the hood, and while it's possible to look into that by viewing the source, most people wouldn't understand most of it if they did.

I've also had cases where I've looked for documentation for free software and had no end of trouble finding any.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the benefits of free software, but most of those benefits are only benefits to a select subset of users, or in specific situations. To anyone else there is little reason to care about "software freedom" as the FSF defines it, as long as they have the freedom to use whatever software works best for them.

-Neelix

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.