"Respects Your Freedom" certification?

[comradekingu]

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.

....

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?

What did you think it meant, oh, I see. Interesting.

 

[_wb_]

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

Good question. It's probably just a FUD argument. I doubt anyone at the FSF would start a public humiliation campaign against a niche product that got the certification but then for some reason withdraws from it. When it comes to name-and-shame campaigns w.r.t. companies that reduce software freedoms, they tend to target much bigger fish, like Apple and Microsoft.

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.

Do you really think that FSF's main goal with the RYF certification is to make money out of it? Think again. If that were the case, don't you think they would be better off by relaxing the conditions so it becomes much easier to meet them? I mean, the list of products that meet their criteria is not very long - as a money-making strategy, it seems to fail miserably.

Yes, it's true that the RYF label puts some restrictions on how things can be advertised. For example, the huge "Open Source" text on the cardboard box would probably need to be replaced by (or at least balanced by an equally large mention of) "Free Software" or something like "Free and Open Source Software". When referring to the OS, the website and the cardboard box would have to say "GNU/Linux" and not "Linux". Other than that I think the current advertisement is already more or less OK as is.

So yes, I guess that means that getting the RYF certifications puts some (voluntary!) restrictions on the OP2T's "freedom of speech". I'd say that those restrictions are relatively minor - with or without the certification, I would refer to the OS as "GNU/Linux" and not "Linux" anyway, and if were advertising it, I'd assign at least as much weight to the fact that the software is Free (as in libre) as to the fact that it is open source, which is implied by it being Free but a weaker statement. I don't think we would lose anything by using that terminology.

 

[moxie]

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

From Magic-La-La-Land.

And with that said, I am extremely close to WizardStans position - I respect and agree with a lot of the goals of FSF, but I disagree with a lot of their going about things. I'm far from convinced that RYF certification would be a good idea even if we fulfil the requirements. But there is a lot of space between "disagree with FSF" and "Make up bogus arguments and (deliberately?) misunderstand simple text".


Grench is doing a good job at convincing me that we should go for the certification, along the lines of "Well, if the arguments against are that bad, then what the hell..."

 

[bzar]

From what I can gather, the "public humiliation if we were to withdraw from the certification" logic is something like "By creating a certification they attach positive connotations to they implicitly imply that anything that does not have this certification is inferior in the respects the certification considers. Therefore any product without the certification is implicitly humiliated by mentioning that it does not have the certification by implying that it does not meet the necessary criteria to earn the right to certification. Furthermore, losing the certification conveys a one-sided version of what has changed in the product, which may be interpreted by the receiver to mean the product and its producers have betrayed anything and everything the certification stands for, and as such result in even more negative image than not having the certification in the first place."

Not saying I agree with this, but this is my interpretation of what grench has thus far said.

EDIT: formatting

 

[Exophase]

"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

This one seems pretty eyebrow-raising to me too. FSF has always been really anal and authoritarian with terminology. While only those two examples are given, they could easily extend this to a dispute over how you use any words, and it could happen over materials that are not easily changed like packaging.

All arguments aside, having to refer to the hardware as including GNU/Linux instead of Linux definitely sounds like furthering FSF's specific agenda and interests more than simply respecting the freedom of buyers. Although this wouldn't be a huge deal to conform to I really don't like the implications. Again, I'm not making an argument against the usage of "GNU/Linux" by ED, I simply don't feel comfortable with the connection between this requirement and what the certification is supposed to represent. This strikes me as an abuse of power by FSF. At least they could have made general requirements about proper crediting, not simply that they must credit GNU.

 

[_wb_]

The FSF has repeatedly stated that mentioning GNU in the name of the OS is not really about giving credit where credit is due - if that were the main issue, then you should also mention X and Apache and whatever.

The point about mentioning GNU is to remember and propagate the goals and values of the GNU project - building a fully free alternative to Unix.

For the same reason they use the terminology "Free Software" instead of the more neutral term "Open Source", since the latter only focuses on the development methodology but not on the ethical/political issues of software freedom.

I can see how this terminology is appropriate for RYF-certified hardware. Using that terminology makes it clear that you care about respecting freedom. So to me the connection between that requirement and what the certification represents is more or less clear.

 

[Exophase]

The FSF has repeatedly stated that mentioning GNU in the name of the OS is not really about giving credit where credit is due - if that were the main issue, then you should also mention X and Apache and whatever.

The point about mentioning GNU is to remember and propagate the goals and values of the GNU project - building a fully free alternative to Unix.

For the same reason they use the terminology "Free Software" instead of the more neutral term "Open Source", since the latter only focuses on the development methodology but not on the ethical/political issues of software freedom.

I can see how this terminology is appropriate for RYF-certified hardware. Using that terminology makes it clear that you care about respecting freedom. So to me the connection between that requirement and what the certification represents is more or less clear.

Proper crediting is actually pretty vague. What you describe can easily be called crediting - if not crediting GNU then crediting the free software movement and principles. It's still an issue of credit in my mind.

I get that there's a connection between their goals in promoting the usage of GNU/Linux and their goals in promoting free software with this certification but simply put I don't see how calling the OS "Linux" disrespects anyone's freedom. They shouldn't be calling this RYF, they should be calling it "respects everything FSF stands for certification." And frankly I hate how they spin their stance on everything as a moral imperative and you either buy into the complete package of everything they want or you're against them.

 

[comradekingu]

I guess if you want to make a point out of software freedom as important, you cant meanwhile value it
below convenience for pragmatic reasons.

Such is the nature of the FSF. And its not just the FSFs own GPL lisence that is free.
So they are very much shoulder to shoulder in terms of freedom, so long as that freedom is the one
they want for the user.

The manufacturer already has full power, no need to try and reimplement state regulation.
I feel disagreeing with software freedom as something else than user freedom is like saying
laws dont protect freedom and only govern a restriction in absolute freedom. Its either that or
seperating the word from its intent or its context, (then the context again,
 which we have had enough of, and i dont even want to
comment on it.)

I have respect for the first, but then again linux to begin with isnt for you, no matter what userland
you put on top of it or what you call it.

Basically if you want to take a linux kernel and call the system anything but GNU/Linux, you have to enter the path where open source is inferiour to free software in terms of freedoms for the user. You end up with android, and FSF certainly isnt taking credit (if thats what you want to call it) for that. So by showing that they wont do with negative affiliation (despite the huge popularity) i think that settles it.

Edit: just to be 100% clear, the kernel is still Linux, always has ben, but the system is (almost always) GNU/Linux. The FSF made the tools, the license, some parts of the code, the movement, but thats irrelevant, and rightfully so. All they ask is you use Linux for the kernel and GNU/Linux for the system. And that isnt something new, so its not credited, and certainly not self-credited on someone elses behalf. Its been that way since forever and thats what debian calls itself (if the specified variety applies) (see also GNU/kfreeBSD) I guess Free Software/Linux or something along the lines of what GNU/Linux really means, but thats just cumbersome.

Open source (software) is actually a more descriptive term than free software, since it doesnt have the plurality. But just like open source came to be the buzzword, as did the proprietary world change accordingly. They feed on permissive free software and certainly abuse open source for what its worth (as opposed to free as in freedom)

"Free software" predates "open source", just like software with code and documentation predates proprietary systems with extended DRM that came in the late 70s. Thats when free software was coined, to gain back the liberties that were lost, and to extend and protect them. And that model is superior (to MS), make no question about it. But the old dinosaurs die hard, and we are going to have another round of it (apple and google somewhat) if we allow open souce (and permissive free lisences) to permiate a field where the difference to the user is paramount and has always been the real issue.

To get back to topic, i think we all agreed that we should work towards these goals. Then we can contact the fsf if we think we are within reason, and see what its all about. Publish all info, then bring it to a popular vote.

Most of the arguments were about a proposed future, in which we can decide against, the road to that point is paved with good intentions. And the terms we could get really nitpicky about, without having to make stuff up.

If we delivered a good software solution in terms of freedom, we can make it more complete without making it worse. All this really is about is what we can do with the hardware, which i suppose is a freedom everyone is for.

And then there are those "but then we cant have (made for windows) stickers. Untill grench (YES YOU) actually reads that EULA (i have) and about what it ties into (special icon on the keyboard for superbutton for example) Im calling this a potential good badge to carry.

 

[Grench]

"Babies are cute."

OK, I suppose I can go along with that statement.

"Then you should pay and sign a contract to join our organization for the promotion of cute babies.  If you say anything negative about our organization or about babies, toddlers to anyone we will pay them for informing us of your infraction and fine you per the contractual terms.  Also, anything you state in the future regarding babies, whether they be human, kitten or other, the making of them or products associated with them must be vetted by the organization for the promotion of cute babies.  If you leave the organization for the promotion of cute babies, we will let everyone know that you do not think babies are cute - and are therefore a monster."

"You're either with us or against us."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_either_with_us,_or_against_us

 

[Exophase]

Ugh, I really didn't want to open up another stupid argument about whether or not it should be called GNU/Linux or Linux. That isn't the point. The point is whether or not it's appropriate to require that you avoid calling the thing Linux in order to be worthy of saying that you have hardware that respects your freedom. And while I understand that FSF (and others like _wb_) may see a legitimate connection between these two things I personally think it's a big stretch. The point of the certification is supposed to be that this thing you buy comes free and is easy to keep free. I can understand the argument that it should be marketed in such a way that it's very distinct from other offerings that wouldn't be eligible for the certification, although I think that's insulting the intelligence of the userbase. I can even understand that they'd want the emphasis of free software over open source. But insisting on calling it GNU/Linux is too much - the implication that calling it "Linux" means that you are projecting an image of a hardware platform that doesn't allow and promote freedom is nonsense. If FSF really feels this way they need to pull their head out of their asses. But I don't think they actually feel this way, at least not deep down, I think they're just leveraging the power they have in giving certification to further an unrelated cause.

 

[bsp]

"Free software" predates "open source", just like software with code and documentation predates proprietary systems with extended DRM that came in the late 70s

exactly. my stance on this kind of discussion is that


a) the FOSS "fanatics" (sry for the wording) should recognize that a lot (really *a lot*) of work goes into the development of these closed source binary blobs and that not every company on this planet will happily release the source code for them (a million $ revenue a year of the FSF is nothing, when compared to CSS)


 a) hardware vendors should not be that uptight about their products. The hardware has an interface that is supposed to be used by SW. Good for you if you have better closed-source drivers for that, but the HW interface docs should be released / publically available, so that FOSS devs have a fighting chance to get their shot at trying to come up with something equivalent (or even better).


just my .2c

 

[comradekingu]

Its not a stupid argument so long as you describe what "it" is. But there is that other thread for that. Its not about just linux, and it has implications to hardware, if we dont get it right, we can forget about GNU/kfreebsd support (we dont have that now for example)

We are probably going to end up using debian, which if you want to call it by its full name is actually Debian GNU/Linux. I dont have a preference myself, but saying "I use linux" is just as technically incorrect as saying "i use NT 2920932320220203" for windows or "i use XNU" for osx.

Since when was "uses linux operating system" something that meant anything to anyone, its pointless, and growing more so with the invention of non GNU/Linux solutions and GNU/kfreebsd gaining popularity (hah)

To techinical users its a logical fallacy, without merit or meaning, to novice users i think it scares more than it sells.

Language is strange, and it means different things to different people. Take the example of what "hacker" means (cracker/scriptkiddie), as opposed to a real hacker. The interesting point is that who uses it how tells me alot about the legitimacy of the statement.

bsp
a) You are pointing fingers at yourself for saying that, thanks for pounintending that out The FSF doesnt use the same model of business as the proprietary vendors, so your comparison is invalid as a direct comparison to what the software is worth. I dont really know what you meant, but FOSS is worth more than anything else in terms of development cost/value. It depends how you measure, but your way wasnt good. You would be making a better point out of comparing lines of code, and thats thin. IBM was talking about investing a billion dollars into linux yesterday btw.

The FSF has never asked the big vendors for anything but follow their lisence, to a project made largely from scratch with unix herritage (the good part) They are largely winning, but the battle is now hardware. Thats why i think they would be very interested in working together with us. Windows is closing down and closing itself up, and from a users perspective getting to company that wrote the bios code to your product is impossible if you folow the chain. So they throw their weight behind good efforts and continue to point out the bad ones.

Their motive is that freedom is all important, so they cant really advertize someting that is just 98% good.

You can always have the convenience of "bring the hardware you already have", and make the best of it, since that is just walking in a better direction given the state of things and the marketplace, but thats limiting and an old way to go about it. Power to the people, is power to us. If the FSF doesnt help us when we are doing it right, we can call them out. And trust me, that is a better card to have than FSFs ability to call out its own failiure.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ive researched the "firmware issue" and it turns out our nubs arent a problem for RYF. Our wifi and lack of good 3D GPU driver is. And thats what we should discuss fixing. RYF or non RYF

 

[Exophase]

Pandora 2 is probably going to end up using Debian? Like, plain Debian or what? What makes you think this?

And seriously, what part of "let's not open up that argument again here" do you not understand? You even start out saying there's another thread for it then jump right back into it.

 

[comradekingu]

I used assumption, the mother of all upfnux. I think it makes sense, what we have now is more a result of constraints rather than actual choice. Lets leave that one if there isnt a more compelling competitor, we could discuss why that is better rather than why debian is good.

I was trying to close it for now and enlighten anyone who doesnt want to fall into the trap of opening up that thread. From what i remember the noise floor was high. Sorry for wasting your time, i made the dashed line to show what i really wanted to talk about.

 

[bsp]

hey http://boards.openpandora.org/index.php/user/2326-comradekingu/ ,

 no need to attack me , I get what you are saying and I am all in favour for having a 100% free OS (as in, you can change/tweak every aspect of it and run that modifications on the target (GPLV3..).

 I release all of my SW under terms of the GPL, if circumstances allow it, btw.

to quote myself:

hardware vendors should not be that uptight about their products. The hardware has an interface that is supposed to be used by SW. Good for you if you have better closed-source drivers for that, but the HW interface docs should be released / [be] publically available

that's what rly matters, IMHO.

 

[comradekingu]

Well thats nice and all, but what really really matters is a result of that, mattering most or least, its in the very least very good to have. And a good number two in terms of not having free drivers. Not even having documentation is a clear reason to avoid something, rather support someting else, even if it can be made to happen.

 

[_wb_]

The FSF has repeatedly stated that mentioning GNU in the name of the OS is not really about giving credit where credit is due - if that were the main issue, then you should also mention X and Apache and whatever.

The point about mentioning GNU is to remember and propagate the goals and values of the GNU project - building a fully free alternative to Unix.

For the same reason they use the terminology "Free Software" instead of the more neutral term "Open Source", since the latter only focuses on the development methodology but not on the ethical/political issues of software freedom.

I can see how this terminology is appropriate for RYF-certified hardware. Using that terminology makes it clear that you care about respecting freedom. So to me the connection between that requirement and what the certification represents is more or less clear.

Proper crediting is actually pretty vague. What you describe can easily be called crediting - if not crediting GNU then crediting the free software movement and principles. It's still an issue of credit in my mind.

In my mind, "crediting" is all about recognizing authorship of greatness in the past. And the reason the FSF insists on the terminology "GNU/Linux" is not that. They want to spread the idea of software freedom in the future, and they think that just calling it "Linux" does not particularly help with that, while calling it "GNU/Linux" may cause people who are using the software to want to learn about the GNU project and its goals of software freedom.

But yes, just for the sake of proper crediting and factual accuracy/completeness, we should call our OS a distribution of GNU/Linux anyway, with our without the certification.

 

[Rockthesmurf]

I guess the biggest freedom you can grant the potential customers for the Pandora 2 is the simple freedom not to buy it if they don't want it. Part of that absolute freedom will be for them to see what the Pandora offers (in terms of licenses, software, expandability, etc.) and then choose whether it is right for them.

So, my vote, make the Pandora 2 the best device it can be, have little care about certifications and stickers to go on the box, if the resulting product is one that can have these certifications, great, seriously consider it, if not then leave the user the freedom to decide if they still want to buy it or not.

Anyway... back on topic now...

 

[sebt3]

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQ3MTM

this could be of some use here i guess

 

[comradekingu]

I think its just powerVR that doesnt have (working) FOSS drivers in (active) development. Anything but that is fine by me.