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

[comradekingu]

That the notion doesn't compute for you, doesn't mean anything for me, or anyone else in the scope of your argument. The exception to which is you are the judge of you, and exo is the judge of exo.

Giving away free items, is a question of price, granting the freedoms as per free software, is a question of something else. What strategy is best, does not change this.

From your reasoning you say free software and better-than-closed-alternatives is better in terms of what is worthy of promotion. So better in some way for you answers your question.

If you consider closed software equal, you are not forced to apply for RYF certification, this is the choice of the vendor.

Demagoguery at any cost is not the best form of resistance. It just lumps people who aren't proponents of something and actively try to avoid it, in with nonsensical arguments.

Edit: Exo giving away things is a nice gesture, its also atop him making something to even give away, which, other things aside is where his contribution has to do with ability, considering his offer is the best.

While an emulator isn't a low-down and potentially more evil component, since it is optional, the question of price, and even receiving it for free, is for justifiable reasons irrelevant to some people.

If you consider all software freedoms to be important for all things, that someone is you, but it's not mutually exclusive, people who don't think its important are included if all things are indeed free software.

In some way this compares with the social etiquette implied in having a vegan over for dinner.

Irrelevant is also the higher and justifiable goals of RYF when you consider the options it leaves ED with. He may want free software this and that, but the marketplace isn't there. If he cant buy or make components that fit, he cant sell them without limiting the capability of the product. The only ideal way (maximising profits) out of that, is to sell two versions, which also adds some level of burden.

There are upsides and downsides to all positions, imagine for example that exos emulator could be bundled in with the OS, ready to go. Great for a lot of reasons, but then you cant say that the whole OS is free software for marketing purposes.

Very murky when there is closed firmware in play, but at least that is optional. Any company can say "we dont spy", not everyone can leave everything up for scrutiny. For a variation over this theme, RYF makes sense.

 

[Rockthesmurf]

I'm not sure if it is just a translation issue, but the above post doesn't really make any sense to me.

 

[Haraldur]

Users are at the mercy of the programmers, and must trust that the software they use shall not harm them. If the source code is available, it is easier to verify that the software does not cause harm and, indeed, to improve the software in other ways, spot bugs, learn from the software, introduce new features etc.. This, in a way, guarantees the freedom of the user (NOT the programmer, or, at least, not any more than other users) to use the software as they like and modify it as they please and, with the correct licence, communicate these uses and modifications. In fact, it is so much easier to read source code than object code (usually non-ASCII) that the FSF considers access to the source code a practical precondition for Freedom.

I repeat, users are at the mercy of the programmers. More than this, it is difficult even for other programmers to understand the original programmer's work, but this is much easier if the other programmers have access to the source code. As a result, the freedom and safety of even the most clueless user is improved by letting other programmers easily inspect the software.

For different types of software, this level of freedom and safety varies in importance. For old games to be run on newer virtual machines with limited privileges (such as a game console emulator), the question is almost moot: while it would be nice to easily make modifications to the game, if one chose, at the least it is unlikely to harm one and there do exist other games that are more easily modified (and licensed appropriately).

For operating-system internals, non-free software is increasingly, and rightly, viewed as unacceptable, as that is where the user is most vulnerable. Similar importance may be applied to file managers, terminals, shells, window managers etc., as they define how the user interacts with the system.

Fortunately for us, most the the non-free low-level software we must deal with seems non-essential and, while the WIFI module may be untrustworthy (I would probably take the risk), I suppose (naively?) that a compromised GPU cannot do much damage.

Non-free userland software with no special privileges can cause problems, and requires vigilance, as GNU/Linux does not, as standard, sandbox everything (some people are working on this, in the GNOME project, I believe, as well as some smaller GNU project... projects). By default, running a normal application in Arch Linux gives it all the permissions of the user invoking it, including the permission to wipe the home directory (I believe there was a Steam bug that did something similar), so the community must very much trust the provider of a non-free program in order to use it, as no-one can easily verify its operation and spot problems or attacks.

 

[FaeMinx]

comradekingu often applies an expansive view that includes various conciderations. He does this because he recognises a fundamental difference of qualitative appreciation of the subject at hand. So in this awareness he tries to carry accross understanding... But this fails when gears are shifted too rapidly. People are generally unprepared to approach understanding of an issue from the point of qualitative adjustment.


Did that help?

 

[Grench]

Spoiler

That the notion doesn't compute for you, doesn't mean anything for me, or anyone else in the scope of your argument. The exception to which is you are the judge of you, and exo is the judge of exo.

Giving away free items, is a question of price, granting the freedoms as per free software, is a question of something else. What strategy is best, does not change this.

From your reasoning you say free software and better-than-closed-alternatives is better in terms of what is worthy of promotion. So better in some way for you answers your question.

If you consider closed software equal, you are not forced to apply for RYF certification, this is the choice of the vendor.

Demagoguery at any cost is not the best form of resistance. It just lumps people who aren't proponents of something and actively try to avoid it in with nonsensical arguments.

Edit: Exo giving away things is a nice gesture, its also atop him making something to even give away, which limits ability, considering his offer is the best.

While an emulator isn't a low-down and potentially more evil component, since it is optional, the question of price, and even receiving it for free, is for justifiable reasons irrelevant to some people.

If you consider all software freedoms to be important for all things, that is you, but its not mutually exclusive, people who don't think its important are included if all things are free software.

Irrelevant is also the higher and justifiable goals of RYF is when you consider the options it leaves ED with. He may want free software this and that, but the marketplace isn't there. If he cant buy or make components that fit, he cant sell them without limiting the capability of the product. The only ideal way out of that, is to sell two versions, which also adds some level of burden.

There are upsides and downsides to all positions, imagine for example that exos emulator could be bundled in with the OS, ready to go. Great for a lot of reasons, but then you cant say that the whole OS is free software for marketing purposes.

Very murky when there is closed firmware in play, but at least that is optional. Any company can say "we dont spy", not everyone can leave everything up for scrutiny. For a variation over this theme, RYF makes sense.

 

Spoiler

Users are at the mercy of the programmers, and must trust that the software they use shall not harm them. If the source code is available, it is easier to verify that the software does not cause harm and, indeed, to improve the software in other ways, spot bugs, learn from the software, introduce new features etc.. This, in a way, guarantees the freedom of the user (NOT the programmer, or, at least, not any more than other users) to use the software as they like and modify it as they please and, with the correct licence, communicate these uses and modifications. In fact, it is so much easier to read source code than object code (usually non-ASCII) that the FSF considers access to the source code a practical precondition for Freedom.

I repeat, users are at the mercy of the programmers. More than this, it is difficult even for other programmers to understand the original programmer's work, but this is much easier if the other programmers have access to the source code. As a result, the freedom and safety of even the most clueless user is improved by letting other programmers easily inspect the software.

For different types of software, this level of freedom and safety varies in importance. For old games to be run on newer virtual machines with limited privileges (such as a game console emulator), the question is almost moot: while it would be nice to easily make modifications to the game, if one chose, at the least it is unlikely to harm one and there do exist other games that are more easily modified (and licensed appropriately).

For operating-system internals, non-free software is increasingly, and rightly, viewed as unacceptable, as that is where the user is most vulnerable. Similar importance may be applied to file managers, terminals, shells, window managers etc., as they define how the user interacts with the system.

Fortunately for us, most the the non-free low-level software we must deal with seems non-essential and, while the WIFI module may be untrustworthy (I would probably take the risk), I suppose (naively?) that a compromised GPU cannot do much damage.

Non-free userland software with no special privileges can cause problems, and requires vigilance, as GNU/Linux does not, as standard, sandbox everything (some people are working on this, in the GNOME project, I believe, as well as some smaller GNU project... projects). By default, running a normal application in Arch Linux gives it all the permissions of the user invoking it, including the permission to wipe the home directory (I believe there was a Steam bug that did something similar), so the community must very much trust the provider of a non-free program in order to use it, as no-one can easily verify its operation and spot problems or attacks.

By those assertions all work output and source code generated by all programmers everywhere should be mandated as public domain. This effectively values the time, ingenuity and art of the programmer as worth nothing.

In the dark ages there were men who worked to re-write the books and scrolls of history in order to preserve their time's equivalent of 'source code' - they didn't get paid much of anything either. Maybe they were on to something...

All IT personnel will thus be immediately contracted to their nation/state of citizenship as servants, indentured for life. They will also be disallowed to possess worldly possessions or breed.

 

[Rockthesmurf]

I bet like 90% of the collective time spent by users on their Pandoras is on emulation, playing closed source, commercial games.

 

[Hồng Thất Công]

I bet like 90% of the collective time spent by users on their Pandoras is on emulation, playing closed source, commercial games.

But this is different from piracy though.  I bet 100% of the 90% of those users own their the games they emulate, own closed source, and own commercial games.

 

[rygD]

I bet like 90% of the collective time spent by users on their Pandoras is on emulation, playing closed source, commercial games.

But this is different from piracy though.  I bet 100% of the 90% of those users own their the games they emulate, own closed source, and own commercial games.

Not likely.  They might be allowed to play the games due to paying for that privilege, and they might own a copy of the game, but most probably don't actually own the games.  I seem to remember this distinction being made somewhere around here.  I think it may have had something to do with some of us having a preference for physical copies of the game.  I am probably wrong about all this, but I still prefer carts/disks/discs or at least making a copy for myself, and possibly make a back up copy (which I may or may not have the legal right to do, depending on various factors).

 

[comradekingu]

If anything Haraldur asserted falsely that trust is infinitely valuable, and monetarily unsaleable. If the source is open, for even the most basic level of open, you can hire someone to audit it.

That puts some level of power in the users hand outside of reading code and putting trust in original author that closed software does not have.

 

[diligentcircle]

The notion that it would have been 'better' for Exophase to release DraStic with source code and a permissive license just doesn't compute for me.

You don't understand how having something that could potentially be beneficial (depending on your views and position) and could not conceivably cause any harm is better than not having it? Seems clear-cut to me.

 

[Rockthesmurf]

onpon4, of course it would cause harm, if the full source was released, it would be taken, packaged up and sold on the mobile markets, sure Exophase could then battle with them to get it taken down, but that can be an ongoing battle, and then you have somewhere like China where it is next to impossible to get any licensing agreement honored. The damage would be huge. This is the problem with people that think things are 'clear-cut' they just don't have a clue (as in they aren't professional games developer, don't understand the markets, etc. as if they did this would be very common knowledge).

 

[diligentcircle]

it would be taken, packaged up and sold on the mobile markets

You can't make an activity harmful just by asserting that it is with an ominous tone. How would people selling copies of DraStic be "harm"? What "damage" would it cause?

 

[comradekingu]

What exactly prevents me from pirating closed software? Do we pretend that it isnt possible, and that FOSS cant be sold?

Just basic open source with nothing more is exclusive.

I wonder if the non-commercial licenses apply to the author? Has anyone ever done that?

But whatever makes sense for one person, is again, not true for all people. If you want it all to be security through obscurity or everything to be FOSS, its two valid stances.

 

[Haraldur]

If anything Haraldur asserted falsely that trust is infinitely valuable, and monetarily unsaleable. If the source is open, for even the most basic level of open, you can hire someone to audit it.

That puts some level of power in the users hand outside of reading code and putting trust in original author that closed software does not have.

Trust is unfortunately a necessity: I trust that the collective that is the Arch Linux community shall ensure my safety, with software, and that my connections to the Arch Linux servers are not intercepted. Trust is a substitute for work, as I am too lazy to audit all the software myself or, indeed, to write all the software myself. One of the main benefits of FOSS is that much less trust is needed: a shallow trust for a large group of people rather than deep trust for a single entity. This is done through Linus' Law, partly, including people being paid to check all the software.

Of course, another nice affect of the software being Libre is that it is often, as a side effect, Gratis.

I bet like 90% of the collective time spent by users on their Pandoras is on emulation, playing closed source, commercial games.

The least problematic (if no DRM) type of software. Also, most of the games that are not FOSS source ports (or fully FOSS) are played on virtual machines much newer than they are, and so, effectively, sandboxed -- there is essentially no danger. It helps that most of these virtual machines are FOSS (for example, PCSX-ReARMED (I assume, as PCSX is), DOSBOX and SCUMMVM).

By those assertions all work output and source code generated by all programmers everywhere should be mandated as public domain. This effectively values the time, ingenuity and art of the programmer as worth nothing.


In the dark ages there were men who worked to re-write the books and scrolls of history in order to preserve their time's equivalent of 'source code' - they didn't get paid much of anything either. Maybe they were on to something...


All IT personnel will thus be immediately contracted to their nation/state of citizenship as servants, indentured for life. They will also be disallowed to possess worldly possessions or breed.

All work output and source code as public domain: Yes. I want copyright to be abolished.

Monetary value: Piracy also makes price tend towards zero. Also, if people are prepared to pay when free (gratis) copies exist, might they not pay even if the source code is available?

Dark ages: Back then, copying was laborious. Now its price is infinitesimal.

Employment by the state: Is that so bad? If we are to have a state, it might as well provide services to the citizens: in the UK, there is a public broadcaster (the BBC), that produces its own content, mostly TV but also films and music (and, in the past and very recently, computers and software) -- it is a rather popular institution. There is no reason why the state cannot promote software, especially if, for any reason, the private sector may stop.

Besides, there will likely be, for some time to come, well-paid work exploiting the ignorance of a large section of the population, combined with network effects, like with Facebook, and with smartphones in general, it seems to me. But perhaps I am just grumpy. Oh, and military/surveillance/cyberwarfare work.

Servitude, involuntary celibacy: Exaggeration, distortion and straw men always improve the entertainment value of a forum topic.

Note: I have no particular objection to people playing by the rules of the current system (with exceptions for when I am affected: hello Microsoft), though I may avoid certain things; I want the system to change.

 

[Neelix]

it would be taken, packaged up and sold on the mobile markets

You can't make an activity harmful just by asserting that it is with an ominous tone. How would people selling copies of DraStic be "harm"? What "damage" would it cause?

For someone running a business selling software they've worked hard to develop it would represent a significant loss, especially since the copycats are likely going to ensure they are always undercutting the rightful publisher's price, which then in turn forces prices and profits down even further. 

-Neelix

 

[comradekingu]

In terms of price, how is pirated not even more of an issue to compete against?

If you allow people the freedom to copy, you cant call them copycats. If you dont, then that is still your choice.

The argument fully misses out on being sent patches, and people contributing to your project.

You have put no value on loyalty, which is where the money from the people who actually pay comes from.

There are both one man and megacorporation businesses making a living off FOSS products.

Some of which are more profitable and vibrant than they could ever hope to be otherwise.

 

[diligentcircle]

someone running a business selling software they've worked hard to develop

Last time I checked, DraStic was not developed commercially, and copies of it were distributed gratis. Not sold.

 

[TrashyMG]

someone running a business selling software they've worked hard to develop

Last time I checked, DraStic was not developed commercially, and copies of it were distributed gratis. Not sold.

He sold the Android version on google play. The free Pandora version was because he liked this community.

 

[diligentcircle]

Oh. Honestly, I thought this was a more nuanced idea than that a business that depends on a monopoly needs to be protected for some reason. Very well, then...


But really, it's a matter of perspective. For whoever rules North Korea right now, North Korea becoming a free country would be a bad thing. That doesn't make it objectively bad for North Korea to become a free country. So really, how can the idea that it would be better for something to be libre "not compute" for you?

 

[Neelix]

Oh. Honestly, I thought this was a more nuanced idea than that a business that depends on a monopoly needs to be protected for some reason. Very well, then...


But really, it's a matter of perspective. For whoever rules North Korea right now, North Korea becoming a free country would be a bad thing. That doesn't make it objectively bad for North Korea to become a free country. So really, how can the idea that it would be better for something to be libre "not compute" for you?

Because it is a matter of perspective but you're basically trying to sell the idea that if it's good from your perspective it must be good for everyone.  The world just doesn't work that way.

-Neelix