"Respects Your Freedom" certification?

[sswam]

I'm revoking any GPL I've placed on my code and closing source as of now. This is just too much.

LOL ZXD, I hope you reconsider.  Why don't you just use a sensible permissive license, such as "public domain", MIT or BSD.

Or some simpler less zealous copyleft license if you really want to go that way.

I think that the GPL sucks, but not because of the religious zealotry, rather because it's incompatible / infectious to other more liberal licenses.

So I use "public domain" for all my stuff.

people get so passionate about this quasi-political bollocks

 

[comradekingu]

Before I start here, lets me just say, yes, wb says some things that are just plain wrong, as do I, as do we all to some extent, but for the most part wb makes sense, which is a discerning quality. Focusing on that part and dealing with the junk as well as he makes sense, for the part of it that does, is just as good a quality to have. Grouping people is just as valid as rallying yourself with anyone who by that assumption ends up on the other side of the borg divide.

My point is that the contribution of GNU/FSF is more than just the collection of code they wrote. They also designed the GPL, pushed other projects like BSD and X to adopt FOSS licenses, and started the whole FOSS movement in the first place.

So you're rewriting history now...

Opensource existed before the FSF. Neither the FSF nor RMS did start showing their source. How would RMS had the idea to start this whole mess if lexmark never provided the sources of their drivers ?

FOSS isnt the same as Open source, i don't know if that is a slip of the tongue on your part, but its crucial to the discussion. Open Source can be FOSS, just like a Linux system can be a GNU/Linux system.

Notice how it isnt Android GNU/Linux, its Android Linux.

Open source can be non FOSS, but FOSS is always Open Source.

If you remove yourself from the ideals of GNU and make a truly sucky platform like Android, FSF will be there to not give you a thumbs up. And it would seize to make sense to call anything GNU/Linux if Android was also included.

GNU is a philosophy, and it actually means something. FSF can be as shitty it wants. Point in question, we need Open Source to not be shitty, and then it needs to be FOSS. (doesn't have to be GPL) Do we agree here?

To my knowledge RMS started reverse engineering that printer because the documentation for communication was missing, don't think it had to do with drivers.

Back in the day things were expensive and made to last, this is a time that predates planned obsolescence and broken by design.

Hardware came with schematics, people repaired things, and they shared their findings with the makers. And that was a good system for when competition meant being good. A restriction on being evil is a necessity, as harsh at it may seem. And it has to be implemented at the top of the chain. Since that doesn't happen by itself (then it would be fixable in a sense that suggests there is no problem to begin with) it happens from the ground up.

The spread of communism is countered by the very same structures that counter free market capitalism. And we are all in the same boat.

Tell me what you all think. RYF is the your as in BSD even more-so than your Linux, because vendors target Linux out of the box.

Edit: its only gone too far if you seize to be open minded in favour of being free minded

 

[ZXDunny]

Before I start here, lets me just say, yes, wb says some things that are just plain wrong, as do I, as do we all to some extent, but for the most part wb makes sense, which is a discerning quality. Focusing on that part and dealing with the junk as well as he makes sense, for the part of it that does, is just as good a quality to have. Grouping people is just as valid as rallying yourself with anyone who by that assumption ends up on the other side of the borg divide.

Rallying? An excellent idea! We could hold a rally car race, with GNU fanatics in one car and sensible folks in another. Who would win? Would the GNU sandals+socks attire make clutch work difficult? What sort of car would they drive? I bet it would be one in the shape of a Penguin - one that does what a real rally car does, but is somehow inferior in quality, like someone saw a non-GNU rally car and thought "we need to have a rally car like that, but completely open!" and to that end it probably would have no windows in it.

D.

 

[Exophase]

Notice how it isnt Android GNU/Linux, its Android Linux.

Only no one calls it Android Linux, they just call it Android.

For that matter, it's not called "Ubuntu Linux" either, and you can't find Linux mentioned on their website until you go in some of the deeper sub-pages for the non-desktop applications.

 

[sebt3]

(as you requested a reply by pm...)

FOSS isnt the same as Open source, i don't know if that is a slip of the tongue on your part, but its crucial to the discussion. Open Source can be FOSS, just like a Linux system can be a GNU/Linux system.

Notice how it isnt Android GNU/Linux, its Android Linux.

Well it's just Android, because linus doesn't care to be glorified. He care about getting the source open... And does pretty well (thanks to the GPL).

Open source can be non FOSS, but FOSS is always Open Source.

If you remove yourself from the ideals of GNU and make a truly sucky platform like Android, FSF will be there to not give you a thumbs up. And it would seize to make sense to call anything GNU/Linux if Android was also included.

GNU is a philosophy, and it actually means something. FSF can be as shitty it wants. Point in question, we need Open Source to not be shitty, and then it needs to be FOSS. (doesn't have to be GPL) Do we agree here?

A large part of this doesnt make any sense.

To my knowledge RMS started reverse engineering that printer because the documentation for communication was missing, don't think it had to do with drivers.

The story also tell that the previous printer's drivers were open source, thuss allowing RMS to fix the communication behavior and include a warning the user if the printer jam.

Back in the day things were expensive and made to last, this is a time that predates planned obsolescence and broken by design.

Hardware came with schematics, people repaired things, and they shared their findings with the makers. And that was a good system for when competition meant being good. A restriction on being evil is a necessity, as harsh at it may seem. And it has to be implemented at the top of the chain. Since that doesn't happen by itself (then it would be fixable in a sense that suggests there is no problem to begin with) it happens from the ground up.

The spread of communism is countered by the very same structures that counter free market capitalism. And we are all in the same boat.

Tell me what you all think. RYF is the your as in BSD even more-so than your Linux, because vendors target Linux out of the box.

Now tell me what this have to do with the discution ?Come on what do "planned obsolescence" and "the spread of communism" have to do with Respect your freedom ?

For me RYF hav just to do with having all the hardware drivers open source allowing you to actually what ever you want with your device. And that's it.

And my real problem with the RYF is that it come with people like you that mix many things. I don't give a f***g damn about politics or shit like that, I just to own my device for real. So no label for me as I will own my device : I know ED enough to trust him on that side, and the label would bring here the zealots which will make me quit this community 'cause they would change it and I only like the way it is....

 

[comradekingu]

Notice how it isnt Android GNU/Linux, its Android Linux.

Only no one calls it Android Linux, they just call it Android.


For that matter, it's not called "Ubuntu Linux" either, and you can't find Linux mentioned on their website until you go in some of the deeper sub-pages for the non-desktop applications.

And why should we, Linux is very vague, and what value Gnu/Linux has in addition to that should be implied.


Importantly, ubuntu spies on its users by default with the amazon search. All is well and fine until that happens, then you need to get into permissive licenses and "freedom to spy". _Nobody_ else that I know of in our land does that, for that you have to turn to that other non _GNU_ linux vendor, namely google, with android. So the problem isnt what userland you place on top, its also the difference between all open source licenses. Personally i think Gnu/linux makes a lot of sense there. Ill post my pm to wb if he doesn't respond where i expanded on my understanding of the matter.

 

[comradekingu]

Ok, wb let me post my pm and his reply
 
comradekingu to wb:
Ok, so i think this foss philosophy is good, as do we all, the approximation of _credit_ is down to if the subjective mind thinks that is legitimate.

Instead lets not be quite so single tracked as trying to counter that with maximizing the influence and importance of FSF, that just adds insult to injury. If people dont see it that way, they aren't going to see it more if the angle is the same and the picture is bigger, (actually to the contrary.) Then _you_ become the problem.

Instead why not look at gnu/linux in terms of meaning. It adds philosophical value to something that in essence can be combined with open source as in _just_ open source _not_ free software.

That has merit, because it makes sense. Who gives a shit about details, thats attributing importance to yourself, even if its by proxy of the FSF, it is righteous. If people _dont_ see through the fingers with it, thats what it comes down to.

In practice its _the difference_ between free and open source, that has merit linguistically, because it represents an actual difference, which one may be so inclined as to point out. because that point is important.

That distinction is where gnu/linux starts making sense. Otherwise its just an addition that is seen as extra effort, and it begs the question of what other things would you put in, to be most anal, which is as fruitless a debate as any.

I think "linux system" makes sense if thats the point one is trying to make, whereas a linux OS begs the question of linux who, android or regular?

I think it boils down to GNU/Linux being the non-permissive factor.

"I use linux" isn't technically wrong, just a bit vague.
"what OS do you use" "-Linux" is factually wrong.

What do you think?
 

I think I agree with what you're saying. The only thing is that your writing style is a bit hard to understand - your thoughts are hard to follow because your style is a bit like poetry. Or maybe something is lost in translation (from your or my part, because I think we're both not native English speakers).
 
Anyway, I'm way more attracted to the Free Software camp than to the Open Source camp, but I also think that most of their practical goals mostly coincide, so it makes sense to try to unify both movements to some extent, and talk about FOSS.
 
And I don't think a Pandora successor necessarily has to take a position in the Free Software vs Open Source debate. If the Open Source Initiative has a similar hardware certification program, I wouldn't object at all to get that one too. I'm just not aware of any such campaign from the OSI.

Are there any such campaigns?
I found this:

http://www.canonical.com/engineering-services/certification/hardware-certification and In more detail

 

[Exophase]

And why should we, Linux is very vague, and what value Gnu/Linux has in addition to that should be implied.

Importantly, ubuntu spies on its users by default with the amazon search. All is well and fine until that happens, then you need to get into permissive licenses and "freedom to spy". _Nobody_ else that I know of in our land does that, for that you have to turn to that other non _GNU_ linux vendor, namely google, with android. So the problem isnt what userland you place on top, its also the difference between all open source licenses. Personally i think Gnu/linux makes a lot of sense there. Ill post my pm to wb if he doesn't respond where i expanded on my understanding of the matter.

I'm not saying we should call it Android Linux, I'm correcting you in saying that we don't. Your criticism of Ubuntu is not at all pertinent to the point I was making either. The reason why I said this is to demonstrate that people generally don't get up in arms over what an operating system distro is called. It's only FSF who cares because apparently because they think their cause is of most central and significant importance and must be identified in the title.

I think if FSF feels so strongly about this they should have made a new license that combined GPL with the requirement that all derivative products include the name GNU, and migrated GNU projects to this license where they could. Stallman has been fighting this in the public space for at least 20 years, if he started so long ago they would have been able to move a lot, even most of GNU under this new license. But he didn't, and probably because he knows if he did it'd create negative backlash against GNU, fewer people would use it and probably more alternatives would start being made and used.

 

[comradekingu]

That would detrimental to all and everyone, and contrary to what gnu/linux means, now, today. Any historical aspect has no place in the linguistical discussion IMO. That would be revisionist reactionism.

Is there a problem using the GNU/Linux naming scheme in the manner it makes sense? (explanation below) Or "Gnu Linux", which takes care of the problem in english of saying "gnu linux" where the first takes precedence over the other. Saying "it uses Linux" as a marketing tool is of little value, so why must we do that, which is the problem, no?

Android is next to worthless, its not at the forefront of anything anymore. It is now the leader in devices sold, versus osx and ms, which is well and good because the others suck more.  But we do want to be better than that, and we are.

I didnt call it android linux either, but its the only manner in which one can make sense out of it being different and how. Or? (specifically how, and why, it sucks) Ive used it since the beginning and thats my personal opinion, i am not at home with it all-though its almost there.

It isnt just the FSF that cares, as we have discussed.  "The Debian project switched to calling itself "GNU/Linux" in early 1994;[6][7]"

Also of note:

When Linus Torvalds was asked in the documentary Revolution OS whether the name "GNU/Linux" was justified, he replied:



Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux ... the same way that I think that "Red Hat Linux" is fine, or "SuSE Linux" or "Debian Linux", because if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the thing, but calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" I think is just ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy#cite_note-34[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy#cite_note-3434

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy#cite_note-34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy#cite_note-34

Exactly, it only starts making sense to adopt once you build something thats what that means. (sidenote: revolution OS came out in 2001)

 


I, for one, dont believe in purism as approximation. Seems to be very hard to get anything going with that. Which may be why hurd and bsd falls behind, with respectively purist and heliocentric rather than the best of breed approach of linux.


 

Some argue that you cant call Android a linux distribution either, since its another OS. I think the familiarity of what the others are of that argument would make sense if it wasnt "linux distribution" it does distribute linux, and we are back to the above, everyone else does gnu/linux and android is only linux with its own userland in dalvik virtual machine.

 

It would be interesting if someone got android to run on the bsd kernel, which i suppose is technically possible down the road.

 

Then android linux would still be a linux distribution and android bsd would be a bsd distribution. When debian does the same its gnu in both cases because the userland is similar and compatible with all the other gnu linux distros, regardless of what they call themselves. Or what others chose to call things.

 

Gnu is the four freedoms, and gnu/linux is a ecosystem that gives back to the linux kernel and itself. The Gnu/-part is the "play along" part, all-though it covers licenses that don't require it. A system built only on those would not be a gnu/linux, and instead a linux system or any other kernel in the bottom with a non-gnu userland.

 

We could even state that that is our reasoning, (if we have to put gnu/linux anywhere) i'm as opposed to anything else as the next guy. Tell me what you think I made an effort, it is not meant to be a ruleset or strict in any way, nor the final word.

 

(This is very important in norwegian society. → The law of jante. Its a bit hard to understand though. Well, its very easy to misinterpret)  I think that would knock FSF down from their high horse.

 

TL;DR lets not rally with anyone but our own ideals.

 

[Exophase]

This isn't about whether or not there's anything wrong with saying GNU/Linux, it's about whether or not FSF is justified in demanding that terminology is used. Particularly as a requirement for RYF certification. I also think you're way out of line calling Android next to worthless, plenty of people want to run it even on their Pandoras. Not that this tirade against it has anything to do with anything.

 

[comradekingu]

Yes, i agree with your first claim. Ill get into why.

Let me rephrase my statement about android.

There are many vendors doing it, and that's already being done, so its worthless for _us_ to front it as being special, because our difference to that is our strength. If an android sticker applies, why not have that too, the more the merrier but:

I think this and the gnu linux debate has been tending towards a variation of issues that are largely irrelevant, so i propose that we meet at a compromise. There was support for a RYF sans the GNU/Linux distro, but it proved a bit too awkward to pull off. I would like nothing more than let people have the freedom to get both, out of the box, lets not forget about it though.

I understand that its not GNU/linux thats the problem, but the requirement, which in turn justifies FSF's meaning. (im not really up to speed about _exactly_ what that is, but what i have read was largely what makes the gnu / linux debate such a heated flamewar and a pointless nomeclature in language.

We can call out the FSF as much as we want, and define our own meaning and understanding of the word. Lingustics is about merit and meaning, not about conservationism and reactionary revisionism. Take Gnu/linux from FSF and put it to (its) use. (not to its dogma)

I think gnu is helpful to linux and that they share a lot, but linux can also operate on its own, but its ridiculous to append the name Gnu to the kernel Linux which is "Linux" just like FSF helps BSD with the RYF license, but nobody in their right mind would make the connection FSF/BSD, regardless of contribution. If you cant be friends without branding your friend you are no friend of mine. As for the collaboration of OS gnu/linux, with the distinctions that entails, that's different.

GNU/Linux only means something because it is different from a linux kernel with a (for the case of argument) irrelevant userland.

And by extention of that, that's why linux has no mandatory ties to gnu, (like Android BSD would be)

With this hack we knock FSF down from their high horse, we solve the gnu/linux debate, and everyone wins, even FSF.

I think that kind of attention really could be useful, because people and publications will pick up on it. We all enjoy the good FSF stuff like gnu and the good initiatives (like RYF), but their marketing department needs a slap on the wrist.

 

[ZXDunny]

TL;DR lets not rally with anyone but our own ideals.

Well yes. When I suggested that we do rally, I kind of had in mind that the GNU/FSF folks would be in one car and the sensible folks would be in the other. It wouldn't work if you mixed the teams.

D.

 

[comradekingu]

oh rally? yes! rally vm finland >2013!?

 

[ZXDunny]

oh rally? yes! rally vm finland >2013!?

Yes! Let's get this done. You supply the car for your side, I'll see if we can get a non-open car for our side.

D.

 

[God Ginrai]

Also of note:

When Linus Torvalds was asked in the documentary Revolution OS whether the name "GNU/Linux" was justified, he replied:

Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux ... the same way that I think that "Red Hat Linux" is fine, or "SuSE Linux" or "Debian Linux", because if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the thing, but calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" I think is just ridiculous.%5B34%5D

This bit right here justifies not calling it GNU/Linux. Linus says here that the person who makes the distribution can call it whatever they want. So if we wanted to call it GNU/Linux, then by Linus' words, it's fine. But if we called it Linux, and someone from FSF came around telling us to call it GNU/Linux, then by that same token, it's ridiculous.

-God Ginrai

 

[WizardStan]

Ooho, that's actually a good point. I can defend the RYF and the FSF because, even when I don't strictly agree with them, I can still know what they're doing and where they stand: they're consistent in their requirements.

Except this "GNU/Linux" requirement is contrary to what the FSF actually argues for. If I want to clone GNU HURD and rebrand it "Bodacious OS of Stan (BOSS)" then by the four freedoms of the FSF I can, I have no requirement to mention GNU at all in the name. In the copyright notice, maybe, but I can name it whatever I want, that's part of the freedom the FSF promotes.

So I apologize. I still think that, on it's head, the RYF certification is a good thing: knowing that you can buy hardware and fully use all of its features without necessarily depending on a third party that may or may not be interested in helping you is excellent. With this new information, however, I'd be opposed to actually applying for it: the "GNU/Linux" requirement does not help the user at all and is directly contradictory to what the FSF claims to promote.

 

[Grench]

So I apologize. I still think that, on it's head, the RYF certification is a good thing: knowing that you can buy hardware and fully use all of its features without necessarily depending on a third party that may or may not be interested in helping you is excellent. With this new information, however, I'd be opposed to actually applying for it: the "GNU/Linux" requirement does not help the user at all and is directly contradictory to what the FSF claims to promote.

So, do you and I have basic agreement on these then?


1. The overall claimed objective (FOSS device) is laudable and a good objective to have.


2. The FSF and RYF organizational structure and/or methodology and/or rules are counter to freedom. It isn't worth joining their organization.


We can have a completely free device and not join, pay dues to, pay homage to and sacrifice freedom of speech to the FSF. True freedom instead of branded, 'FreedomTM'.

 

[Exophase]

I don't like the GNU/Linux thing but I think I'm more bothered by the unique naming and marketing requirements. I don't want to preclude non-free variations of the hardware. For example, I see a lot of benefit in including dual-boots for Android along with the native Pandora distro. And I could see benefit in this including non-free software, like being approved to bundle Google's apps, especially Google Play. This is something large enough to where it'd be a big downside for a lot of people to have to install it afterwards, even if the installation itself is very simple.

I'm all for there also being a variation that's entirely free if that's what people want, I just don't like the idea that it has to be named something totally different and has to be in a box that looks totally different (does the device itself also have to look different? Because that'd be pretty intractable)

 

[WizardStan]

So, do you and I have basic agreement on these then?

1. The overall claimed objective (FOSS device) is laudable and a good objective to have.

Yes.

2. The FSF and RYF organizational structure and/or methodology and/or rules are counter to freedom. It isn't worth joining their organization.

Not entirely, just that one which is inconsistent with the rest of their stated goals. It'd be like some vegan certification requiring that it also mention that PETA is an awesome organization: it doesn't help the consumer at all to mention it and is actually contrary to the goals of veganism since PETA is provably not vegan friendly in a lot of ways.

 

[_wb_]

I don't like the GNU/Linux thing but I think I'm more bothered by the unique naming and marketing requirements. I don't want to preclude non-free variations of the hardware. For example, I see a lot of benefit in including dual-boots for Android along with the native Pandora distro. And I could see benefit in this including non-free software, like being approved to bundle Google's apps, especially Google Play. This is something large enough to where it'd be a big downside for a lot of people to have to install it afterwards, even if the installation itself is very simple.


I'm all for there also being a variation that's entirely free if that's what people want, I just don't like the idea that it has to be named something totally different and has to be in a box that looks totally different (does the device itself also have to look different? Because that'd be pretty intractable)

I see your point, but there could be a pretty easy solution: make the default/shipped firmware fully free, and make SD cards with other OS options (e.g. Android, RISC OS, Windows 8, whatever floats your boat) or even SD cards with bundles of nonfree games and sell those separately. That way the hardware is free, but you get easy options to run nonfree software on it. The unique naming/marketing requirement would be trivially satisfied because those SD cards would of course be named differently and in a different kind of box. But if you want to, you can buy a Pandora 2 together with the Android SD card, and all you would have to do is insert the SD card before you insert the battery and it will boot Android (or even flash Android to override the default firmware).