"Respects Your Freedom" certification?

[_wb_]

This discussion is going in circles. No new arguments have been put to the table. So I'll just repeat my summary from a month ago:

So to summarize this thread, I think this is the consensus: (of course feel free to correct me)

• When deciding which hardware parts to use, freedom (i.e. availability of FOSS drivers) is an important consideration.
• The software that will ship with the hardware, should be as free as possible; if the hardware allows it, 100% free.
• We want to keep a community software repo like what we have now (maybe with a better indication/separation of licenses), that is, both free and non-free software can be uploaded and downloaded, gratis or commercially
• We want to be able to advertise that the hardware can (optionally) run non-free software (e.g. Android, RISC OS, GNU/Linux distros that include non-free software, free or non-free emulators that emulate free (rarely) or non-free ROMs, proprietary games, maybe Steam if that ever happens, etc), e.g. with YouTube videos showing footage of non-free games running on the device.
• At the same time, we don't want to give the impression that non-free software is required in order to enjoy the device. In fact, we would also advertise the wonders of Free Software running on the device, and emphasize the potential to modify anything and develop on the device itself using GNU and other Free development tools.
• If "Respects Your Freedom" certification can be obtained with the above in mind, then we should go for it.
• Otherwise (e.g. if the certification would restrict advertisement options too much), then we try to meet the criteria to the largest possible extent, but we don't apply for the certification to avoid it backfiring.

 

[God Ginrai]

what they can advertise as core features of the device.

This is the only thing that worries me about this. Your later posts seem to suggest that we can still advertise emulators, closed-source homebrew, commercial games, etc. as long as we do it in a certain way. However, for all we know, someone could decide to interpret the rules in a really strict way for the P2 and we're boned.

Also, how would the vendors come into this? What if, say, ekianjo packages an SD card with emulators like DraStic on it (closed source) with the system he sells. Do we lose the certification? What if some other vendor stupidly sells the device as a DS emulator or Steambox. Do we lose the certification?

-God Ginrai

 

[Grench]

what they can advertise as core features of the device.

This is the only thing that worries me about this. Your later posts seem to suggest that we can still advertise emulators, closed-source homebrew, commercial games, etc. as long as we do it in a certain way. However, for all we know, someone could decide to interpret the rules in a really strict way for the P2 and we're boned.

Also, how would the vendors come into this? What if, say, ekianjo packages an SD card with emulators like DraStic on it (closed source) with the system he sells. Do we lose the certification? What if some other vendor stupidly sells the device as a DS emulator or Steambox. Do we lose the certification?

-God Ginrai

Any way you slice it, this is a sacrifice of real freedom for the device manufacturer. It grants a non-insignificant amount of power over the project to a 3rd party who has no investment in it. That 3rd party is a 'true believers' quasi-religious organization with it's own dogma that tells it's members how they can speak and what they can speak about.

There is no 'gain in freedom' for the end users. Any claim to be so is purely cosmetic. The existing Pandora is as free as it could be at the time. The next one likely will be as well. The community, us, Pandora purchasers have -absolutely nothing to gain- by encouraging ED to grant this 3rd party influence over the device and ED's speech. We already know that the device is/will be, 'as free as it can be'. We don't need a cop organization leaning over the project's shoulder making sure we're, 'doing it right' by their arbitrary and self-serving 'standards'.

 

[WizardStan]

Ok, so just so I don't misunderstand, you believe that any restrictions on advertising are absolutely a bad thing and should be avoided?

 

[Grench]

Ok, so just so I don't misunderstand, you believe that any restrictions on advertising are absolutely a bad thing and should be avoided?

Yes - restrictions on freedom of speech, any way you slice it or try to caveat or classify it, is simple evil.
Also, granting any 3rd party who has not invested time or money in the project, any form of say in how the project works, gets packaged or advertised is a pointless and potentially dangerous endeavor.

It's like someone volunteering to be on someone else's leash. I know there are some people who prefer the feeling of safety and protection by submitting to the control of others - I'm not one of them.

 

[WizardStan]

Yes - restrictions on freedom of speech, any way you slice it or try to caveat or classify it, is simple evil.

Also, granting any 3rd party who has not invested time or money in the project, any form of say in how the project works, gets packaged or advertised is a pointless and potentially dangerous endeavor.

It's like someone volunteering to be on someone else's leash. I know there are some people who prefer the feeling of safety and protection by submitting to the control of others - I'm not one of them.

Ok, then you would be opposed to EvilDragon advertising in newspapers, magazines, and TV commercials I must assume? After all, these also put restrictions on your freedom of speech, they grant limited rights to their services and can pull your advertisement at any time if you violate their terms. It's not appreciably different from the RYF certification, or you still just don't understand the RYF certification at all.

 

[_wb_]

There is no 'gain in freedom' for the end users. Any claim to be so is purely cosmetic. The existing Pandora is as free as it could be at the time. The next one likely will be as well. The community, us, Pandora purchasers have -absolutely nothing to gain- by encouraging ED to grant this 3rd party influence over the device and ED's speech. We already know that the device is/will be, 'as free as it can be'. We don't need a cop organization leaning over the project's shoulder making sure we're, 'doing it right' by their arbitrary and self-serving 'standards'.

Of course the "Respects Your Freedom" label does not add any "gain in freedom" in itself, but that's not the point. It's like a "100% Vegetarian" label on food: the label is purely cosmetic and does not make the food any more vegetarian than without the label. But if this label is issued by a reliable 3rd party, it is still useful: it makes it easier for you to check that the thing has a certain property. Without you having to check the ingredient list or perform some kind of biochemical analysis.

You are complaining about the arbitrary standards of the label granting organization, that they're overly strict and "religious". That's a bit like complaining that the organization handing out the "100% Vegetarian" labels are being fundamentalist bastards because they don't allow even a tiny bit of meat, not even just 1% bacon for added flavor. And if you want to go further in this analogy, they don't allow the packaging of a food product to display "serving suggestions" showing the food in the packaging in conjunction with meat, suggesting that you can't have a full meal without the meat, although they don't object to factual statements like "this tofu can be eaten together with bacon and shrimps, if you're into that kind of stuff". And according to you, such a requirement would be violating freedom of speech, and nobody should apply for that label, because of course one needs to be able to show tasty pieces of bacon in any advertisement for tofu, otherwise nobody would buy the tofu.

 

[Grench]

Yes - restrictions on freedom of speech, any way you slice it or try to caveat or classify it, is simple evil.

Also, granting any 3rd party who has not invested time or money in the project, any form of say in how the project works, gets packaged or advertised is a pointless and potentially dangerous endeavor.

It's like someone volunteering to be on someone else's leash. I know there are some people who prefer the feeling of safety and protection by submitting to the control of others - I'm not one of them.

Ok, then you would be opposed to EvilDragon advertising in newspapers, magazines, and TV commercials I must assume? After all, these also put restrictions on your freedom of speech, they grant limited rights to their services and can pull your advertisement at any time if you violate their terms. It's not appreciably different from the RYF certification, or you still just don't understand the RYF certification at all.

Apples and hammers - not even in the same class.

Case 1. An individual or entity contracts and pays another entity, under contract, for use of their forum (TV/radio/media). That contract can specify limits on what is or is not acceptable. Note - payment is exchanged and the person/entity making the payment is getting/expecting a return on their investment.

Case 2. A organization approaches an entity, demands that the entity join the organization or they will boycot or generally badmouth the entity. On condition of joining the organization, the organization restricts the entity on what, where and how it can speak. If the entity leaves the organization - they are publicly scorned and boycotted again by the organization.

Case 1 - commercial speech - practiced freely.

Case 2 - protection racket and extortion.

Which do you think that the FSF/RYF organizations most resemble?

 

[WizardStan]

Apples and hammers - not even in the same class.

Ahah! So I was right, you don't understand what the RYF is at all. Ok. 11 pages and I thought I was going crazy. Glad that's settled. Feel free to remain ignorant, I don't care anymore.

 

[Grench]

Apples and hammers - not even in the same class.

Ahah! So I was right, you don't understand what the RYF is at all. Ok. 11 pages and I thought I was going crazy. Glad that's settled. Feel free to remain ignorant, I don't care anymore.

Nope. Not ignorant. I've given it serious thought.

The organization's stated objective is good - encouraging FOSS enabled hardware.

The organization's methods are evil - requiring freedom of speech restrictions on it's members.

If you choose to ignore the impingement on freedom associated with this group in order to further their objectives, that is your choice. I choose not to support the methods - and would encourage others to NOT support the organization until those methods are changed to truly respect freedom.

 

[moxie]

Well, that is of course a quite reasonable position. It doesn't change the fact that your arguments about RYF are wrong, though.

 

[WizardStan]

Nope. Not ignorant. I've given it serious thought.

You also don't understand the definition of ignorance then. You can think about eating cake your entire life but still have no idea how to bake one. You are arguing against something that isn't even at play here. You do not understand what the RYF certification even is, and after 12 pages, and countless rewordings, examples, and analogies, I simply don't know what else can be said to demonstrate that you are wrong. So I'm not going to try.

 

[Grench]

The FSF RYF website where all 3 devices ever certified are noted:
http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/respects-your-freedom

Guidelines for Certification:
http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria

"The following page outlines the general criteria for hardware products that bear the Respects Your Freedom hardware certification mark. However, each certified product carries with it contractual obligations that may differ from those listed on this page."

Note:  Contractual obligations - not smile and a handshake, but CONTRACTS.

"100% Free Software

All the product software must be free software. The product software includes all software that the seller includes in the product, or provides with the product, or recommends for use in conjunction with the product, or steers users towards installation in the product."

Note:  Not mostly free, not free and paid alternatives, 100% Free Software.

Note:  "or steers users towards" would likely include listings in a software library and search/install software.

"By way of explanation, a general-purpose facility for installing other programs, with which the choice of programs to install comes directly from the user, is not considered to steer users toward anything in particular. However, the product suggests using the facility to install certain programs, that is steering users towards those programs."

Note:  Having paid software present in the repo isn't an issue - but having any representative of the product or materials around the product that even suggest trying one of the paid apps is verboten.

"Some device manufacturers include a CD-ROM with their product that has proprietary Windows drivers for the device. This is unacceptable because it does not meet the conditions above. The seller must either make those Windows drivers free software, or not include special Windows drivers."

Note:  Distribution of materials, digital or in print is speech.  This is a direct restriction on freedom of speech.  Even though the device may have full FOSS software installed on it, the mere distribution of alternatives for those interested is forbidden.

"The product materials must say where to get the necessary build software. If some of this build software is included in an FSF-endorsed 100%-free GNU/Linux distribution (see our list), giving the name and URL of that distribution and the program or package names needed suffices for the build software included in it."

Note:  Although not a bad idea, it places a burden on the project for documentation and source code for user created projects.  Required speech.

"Confusion with Other Products

To prevent confusion among customers about exactly what product has been certified, any other products offered by the seller, which are not certified by the FSF, must be easily distinguishable from certified products: their names must not be similar and their packaging must also not be similar."

Note:  Restriction of free speech.

"Other Misleading Endorsements

Companies awarded RYF certification for a given product, must not distribute any product-related materials with endorsements or badges to proprietary software, such as "Works with Windows" or "Made for Mac" badges, because these would give an appearance of legitimacy to those proprietary packages, and may make users think the product requires them. However, we don't object to clear factual statements informing the user that the product also works with specific proprietary operating systems."

Note:  Restriction of free speech.

Note:  Unequal playing ground - presence of the RYF badge restricts the presence of other badges that may apply.

"Cooperation with FSF and GNU Public Relations

The seller must use FSF approved terminology for the FSF's activities and work, in all statements and publications relating to the product. This includes product packaging, and manuals, web pages, marketing materials, and interviews about the product.

Specifically, the seller must use the term "GNU/Linux" for any reference to an entire operating system which includes GNU and Linux, not "Linux" or "Linux-based system" or "a system with the Linux kernel" or any other term that mentions "Linux" without "GNU". Likewise, the seller must talk about "free software" more prominently than "open source.""

Note:  VERY restrictive of free speech.  Seller MUST use FSF approved terminology... in all statements and publications relating to the product.  This means that 100% of the marketing material for the product MUST reference the FSF and MUST be pre-approved by them - meaning that they get censorship rights to all materials.

Note:  Not only does "free software" have to be mentioned - it must be mentioned more prominently than "open source".  They feel that they have to BE the product's claim - not one of many.

"Bounty program

The FSF and the seller will jointly set up a bounty program to encourage the public to report any failure to follow these conditions, with a view to correcting the failures. In this program the FSF will give a small reward to the first person to report any compliance problem in the product previously unknown to the FSF. The FSF will forward the reports to the seller."

Note:  Financial awards for reports of non-compliance paid for by the member.  Kids turn in your parents for a free sucker - that we'll charge back to your parents!

"What comes with certification

A product bearing the Respects Your Freedom certification mark tells customers that your product respects their freedom: the user can change the device as much as you can, and they can do it with free software, and they'll be able to do all this without fear of running afoul of your patents or similar legal threats. Backed by the FSF's rock-solid commitment to software freedom and users' rights, our promotion of your certified product tells the world that this is a product they can trust completely to work for them.

The exact methods we use to advertise certified products are negotiated on a case-by-case basis, depending on your own marketing needs, what's appropriate for the specific product, and other factors. The following arrangements can all be discussed:

• The RYF Certification mark can be displayed on your product's packaging, marketing, and other materials
  
• Use of the FSF name and the Respects Your Freedom certification program in your press releases and advertising, including quotes from FSF executives
  
• Publication of a press release through the FSF's own channels, either jointly with your own or separately"
  

Note:  Has nobody else noticed that these are negotiable, see also PAID, endorsements and certifications?  This program costs money to join.  How much?  They don't list that - apparently the applicant gets to negotiate that in their CONTRACT.

So - am I still wrong?  The entire basis of this organization is parallel in form and function to a protection racket - complete with hush rules.  They're making money, through closed and private contracts, for providing their seal of approval - which costs extra.

Entirely not worth it.

 

[WizardStan]

So - am I still wrong?

Yes, it's quite obvious that you still don't understand what the RYF actually is. You can quote what is required to get it, but your understanding stops there.

 

[God Ginrai]

"Confusion with Other Products

To prevent confusion among customers about exactly what product has been certified, any other products offered by the seller, which are not certified by the FSF, must be easily distinguishable from certified products: their names must not be similar and their packaging must also not be similar."

 Ok, this one is pretty stupid. If EvilDragon had decided to call it the Pandora 2, then he wouldn't even be able to have this RYF certification. This prevents people from choosing to go for this certification with a product in the same series as their other products.

"Cooperation with FSF and GNU Public Relations

The seller must use FSF approved terminology for the FSF's activities and work, in all statements and publications relating to the product. This includes product packaging, and manuals, web pages, marketing materials, and interviews about the product.

Specifically, the seller must use the term "GNU/Linux" for any reference to an entire operating system which includes GNU and Linux, not "Linux" or "Linux-based system" or "a system with the Linux kernel" or any other term that mentions "Linux" without "GNU". Likewise, the seller must talk about "free software" more prominently than "open source.""

 Having to check to make sure you are using the right terminology could be a pain for EvilDragon and those who work w/ him or sell his product. Also, GNU/Linux? Seriously? That's stupid. There is GNU software in most Linux distributions but that doesn't make the operating system "GNU", but you don't see people calling Windows Office/Windows.

-God Ginrai

 

[Grench]

So - am I still wrong?

Yes, it's quite obvious that you still don't understand what the RYF actually is. You can quote what is required to get it, but your understanding stops there.

It is a 'certification' from a 'non profit' organization with closed source contracts for marketing materials that requires it's members to curtail their freedom of speech in the name of 'Freedom'.  Their marketing materials have resulted in members of the FOSS community thinking that it is a benevolent order worthy of promotion - when in reality they're a business making money off of promoting their endorsement.  They claim to be a non-profit, they have a paid staff of at least 11 people and a board of directors of 6.  They also have an opening for a full time Linux/Gnu systems administrator.

Their 2011 tax return:  http://static.fsf.org/nosvn/Form990_FY2012.pdf

Their total revenue in 2011 was $1.31 Million of which they paid out $947,000 in functional expenses (employment costs).  As of the end of 2011, they had $1,086,950 in savings and temporary cash investments. 

They are not a simple benevolent band of volunteers - they are a million dollar a year plus 'not for profit' company with well paid employees and negotiated contracts and marketing deals generating income.  What did YOU think they were?

 

[WizardStan]

Very good. That's a lot of useless information you've posted.

 

[Grench]

So - am I still wrong?

Yes, it's quite obvious that you still don't understand what the RYF actually is. You can quote what is required to get it, but your understanding stops there.

Very good. That's a lot of useless information you've posted.

You seem to have this pie in the sky vision of a rosy community standards organization run by benevolent gnomes.

I have laid out exactly why I think it's a waste of time.

I have detailed the explicitly stated constraints on free speech that they publish as requirements.

So far your arguments have amounted to, 'it's mostly safe and they don't impinge on freedom of speech much and it's voluntary'.  

What I think the FSF/RYF is:

The reality is they use binding contractual law with negotiated payments, insist on being a gatekeeper/approval czar for every piece of material that the 'member' produces.  It is a million dollar + operating entity with an interest in keeping the money rolling in the door - they charge for that stamp of approval.  It is not a benign or casual certification available to anyone that produces a solid FOSS device.  

So, please tell us in 3 sentences or less exactly what YOU think, "the FSF/RYF actually is."

In the interest of disclosure: Are you a member, volunteer or representative in any fashion of the FSF?

 

[WizardStan]

You seem to have this pie in the sky vision of a rosy community standards organization run by benevolent gnomes.

I have said nothing even close to that. If I disagree when you say the cave has a dragon it doesn't mean I think there's a gnome.

I have laid out exactly why I think it's a waste of time.

You have said a lot of things that make me understand why you are against the FSF, absolutely none of which serves to prove why the RYF certification is itself a bad idea. All of your arguments against the certification can directly be applied to every other certification, such as CE and FCC.

So far your arguments have amounted to, 'it's mostly safe and they don't impinge on freedom of speech much and it's voluntary'.

That's almost what my arguments are, but just wrong enough to reassert in my mind that you still don't understand.

So, please tell us in 3 sentences or less exactly what YOU think, "the FSF/RYF actually is."

I have. Several times. In a few sentences and in large paragraphs. As has _wb_ and moxie. You haven't understood any of it, you keep going back to your own opinions and ignoring everything said. How do I know that this time, if I take the time to speak slow and use small words, you'll actually listen?

In the interest of disclosure: Are you a member, volunteer or representative in any fashion of the FSF?

Nope. As a general rule I'm opposed to the absolute control the FSF expects. I respect their goals but disagree with many of their methods. I'd never release anything GPL, for example.

 

[Binky]

Sorry if I've missed this, but where did the "public humiliation if we were to withdraw from the certification" idea come from?