"Respects Your Freedom" certification?

[Exophase]

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).

Although this sounds about the same on paper I don't think this really gets you all the way there. I think there's a lot of value in having something bundled with the system. People won't want to have to buy extra SD cards for this, nor will they want to have to dedicate an SD slot if they don't have to. They want a nice standard, normal solution.

Frankly, I say if it comes down to this don't bother. These SD cards would have to be sold with an extra cost to make it worth anyone's time to make them (unlike a dual boot where the on-board storage would be programmed with both in batch, although it'd cost more time and electricity), and at that point a lot fewer would prefer to pay for that over downloading it themselves. That said, offering both free and non-free versions is going to be an added expense too, especially if it has to be done a unit per unit basis. It'd probably be fastest to give them all the dual-boot version then delete the non-free stuff off of the RYF version. I wonder if it's disrespecting your freedom if there are old inodes in the filesystem from deleted non-free files..

But I don't know what ED is interested in doing to begin with. He said once that he'd consider dual booting Android if there was space. I don't know if he'd actually want to do a separate Android thing. At the very least, developers shouldn't care if users have Android or not, it's the main OS that they'll care about.

I really just don't think the RYF requirement is that sensible. If you make a big fat disclaimer on purchase that explains that the thing you're getting is not free, and this is the only way to order it, I don't see what the problem is. I think their claim that users will be confused and order the wrong thing is just an excuse, and what they're really doing is discouraging vendors from offering non-free alternatives at all.

 

[_wb_]

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

Why would Linus Torvalds have more to say on how you call a GNU/Linux distro than, say, Richard Stallman?

Linus can pick the name for his kernel. GNU can pick the name for their project.

Distros can pick whatever name they want. But if they are based on the Linux kernel, it would be nice for them to acknowledge that fact, because a kernel is a very important part of a distro. And if they are based on the GNU software and philosophy, it is also nice for them to acknowledge that, because that software is important, but also because the philosophy is an important part of a distro. So I think it's very appropriate that, for example, the full name of Debian is "Debian GNU/Linux".

 

[Exophase]

At first I thought what Linus was saying sounded pretty dumb. And I still think it isn't fair to compare GNU to a distro since most things calling themselves a form of "Linux" include GNU software.

But after thinking about it a while, I do think he makes somewhat of a point in another regard. According to Stallman, GNU was a project that set out to make a free operating system, where that operating system consisted of a list of programs that they set out to systematically make, and the kernel was the last of those programs that wasn't made. I don't know how literally true this is - certainly there are many GNU programs that were started after Linux was released and I don't know if there was really a list where everything else on it could be without a doubt considered "done" or at least "good enough." But that aside, the more important point here is that Linus and company didn't make the kernel to finish GNU's list. They brought in pieces of GNU for their own personal usage as it made sense for them, along with other big pieces that weren't from GNU. Eventually this turned into making distros for other users. There are probably several distros that never included by default every program on GNU's list (by the way, I'd like to see this list - according to Wikipedia @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GNU_packages there is no officially defined base system and the list they give is very ad hoc and easily disputed.. furthermore its inclusion of Linux makes the list highly questionable). While it's true that most distros we call "Linux" rely on GNU there isn't really that much of a common subset of GNU that everyone uses - these days even the most ubiquitous parts like the compiler, coreutils, and libc have popular non-GNU alternatives. These distros all have a different vision of what's suitable for an operating system, like GNU does. So in this regard I can see how Linus would relate GNU to a distribution.

FSF agrees that it's fine to include as much credit as you think is appropriate in the name of the distro. They just insist that GNU deserves credit above all else except the kernel. So it's okay to stop after GNU but not before it. And I think this is a very conceited position to take. It's up to individual preferences to decide which part of the system is most significant, or even which had the most positive impact on software or society, or who has the best "message." I don't like them arguing that GNU should be universally recognized as having this level of significance. Especially as the way computers are used by most people has changed a lot since Stallman's time in the late 70s and early 80s, and I don't think his attitude will ever change to reflect this. Users typically don't compile code. Users typically don't use a console, or at least not very much, meaning they don't use coreutils (instead they're using some file manager that probably uses syscalls straight to mess with the filesystem and execute programs). Users often don't grep, sed, or emacs, but Firefox, Chrome, and LibreOffice. They will often use archiving that won't involve gzip. And they heavily rely on a desktop environment that may or may not be GNU. Even some of the CLI stuff I use most has left GNU behind - there's GNU telnet and rsh but ssh isn't GNU. Popular programming languages have also grossly exceeded GCC. While I do think the GNU project has expanded to retain relevance, I have to wonder if this insistence on what makes an OS based on a 30 year old manifesto hasn't done some harm towards how users and potential users perceive the platform.

Sigh, I said this argument wasn't the point but I guess I couldn't really stay away from it I probably made more or less this exact same post at some point in the past..

TL;DR version: _wb_ says that GNU is free to pick the name of their project, which I agree with. What I don't agree with is a collection of software being their projection because it contains some GNU stuff plus some kernel. And demanding this really does feel like it goes against the basic freedom of distribution you get with GPL. Early distros really were little more than Linux and GNU (and maybe X), and maybe those maintainers shared GNU's vision and the name stuck. For a lot of distros today, 20 years later, the situation is different.

Innocent question - is it mere coincidence that the name FSF settled on puts the GNU first? Would they have a problem giving RYF if you called it "Linux/GNU" instead?

 

[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

 Why would Linus Torvalds have more to say on how you call a GNU/Linux distro than, say, Richard Stallman?

Linus can pick the name for his kernel. GNU can pick the name for their project.

Distros can pick whatever name they want. But if they are based on the Linux kernel, it would be nice for them to acknowledge that fact, because a kernel is a very important part of a distro. And if they are based on the GNU software and philosophy, it is also nice for them to acknowledge that, because that software is important, but also because the philosophy is an important part of a distro. So I think it's very appropriate that, for example, the full name of Debian is "Debian GNU/Linux".

Linus doesn't have "more to say". He's making a simple point. You put something together, you get to name it. The difference between Linus and Richard Stallman in this respect is one is saying "Name it whatever you want" and the other is saying "Name it whatever you want as long as you mention GNU". Which one sounds like it respects your freedom?

And to get this certification, you don't get to pick what you want. The RYF cert requires that whenever you refer to it running Linux, you must instead refer to it as GNU/Linux. As Exophase said, modern distros are collections of software, not all of which is GNU software. It's biased to require you to mention GNU but not any of the other software.

-God Ginrai

 

[comradekingu]

Ginrai: read the whole post. Linus does nothing more than do what he expects of others. By implication he even says they can be wrong about it.

Exophase: (I had to write this post twice because it got lost, and that was a sad event, but it was better the second time around. As wb pointed out, English isnt my first language, and my writings are very much thoughts that are hard to punch out quick enough, instead of making every point and tangent under the sun I've condensed it a bit.)

The FOSS ecosystem is an open one, it works contrary to the cathedral, like the bazaar.(ref ESR) That there was a drive and a official list, means nothing more.
We stand on the shoulders of giants. (pop newton) Notice the plurality in the nature of that
chain. Linus made a kernel to scratch his own list, there existed nothing that was usable.

Minix was feature parity usable at some point, but had a bad incompatible license, and therefore it didn't fit with the rest.
See how well that did on its own.

We are better, and we are also FOSS.

Joe average may not compile, and that's good, tom technical still does.
Lower threshold of entry means higher joe to tom ratio.
Which is good.
That the GNU project isn't behind the wheel of everything now, is also good.
We want more players, we want every player there is. If you fight us, we adapt, then you join our ranks or die out.

Maybe kill us in the process and change the game. Best of breed. (Darwin)

One thing has changed though, there now is not merely the two stark opposites
FOSS and proprietary. there is open in between, and they are largely mangled. Good and evil is still on the same

vector though.

Except for how open is different to, it uses the goodwill of; -free, while sometimes catering to the proprietary concerns.

Renaming hurd doesn't require the gnu part because its implied.
Making a distro on top of the mach kernel doesn't need that made clear, because its gplv3.

What kind of "freedom" is it we are about again? The freedom to be a leech, a
parasite? You can take the GPLv2 nature of the Linux kernel and use tivoization to take away freedoms, if only on a technicality. What use is the code if i cant change it, that's good and all, but
lets not get theoretical, who is doing this? Most the time they even violate this
point. They give nothing back. Coincidence?

Proprietary software is the evil. Don't pretend it isn't. Security through obscurity applies to code like

prisons do to solving crime.

We don't ship mp3, and why is that? Cant pay MPEG-LA, shouldn't, refuse to?
Good thing we have an alternative, but why must we protect that shitty model of
business.

If anything has changed its that we can now bring to life a platform without some
evil proprietary old golem can force our head under the water every now and then.
That is good.

We the pandora project are gnu as in how it makes sense, not in how it doesn't.
The map fits the terrain so well we have to go to theoretical lengths of how
the proprietary world is one we should hold hands with...

The day shipping Linux means i get all my freedoms by default i will stop calling the good distros gnu/linux.

What the FSF puts into the naming is not of essence to us. What is important is
how WE see it, (that's why im asking) and the FSF cant do anything about that. I will defend till i
wear out my keyboard that the only linguistic merit that has is freedom, not credit.

Credit in terms of homage is personal, wb can do that if he wants, (ref linus)

I think that the reasons a lot of others don't is because FSF for some reason makes that part of the argument,

thus touting their own horn.

The FSF isn't perfect, nor are we, but now it needs us, it needs to be set straight.
Come down to size.

All the other details are are unimportant where we are, who got us here too. I, for one, don't make hypothetical realities part of my everyday lingo... The crux of it all is FOSS, and the GPL for us Linux folks. RYF to anyone that matters (BSD and others) However FOSS is always paramount,  Without that you are arguably throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Herding the gnu so much it becomes tame and unable to protect itself.

 

[Exophase]

The whole anthem about freedom seriously could not have less to do with what I posted >_> And no I don't think proprietary software is "the evil", you don't expect me to agree with that do you?

 

[comradekingu]

Just want you to share your opinion. If you read the whole thing i say I dont go off on tangents, but i paint a more

detailed picture than that, and say that its mangled, because it is. For example drastic enables me to play DS games in a manner i didn't have the ability to at the mercy of the vendor, Ninendo. That is a freedom.

And that story didn't start there, I see that as part of the community, which pre-dates it.

You are obviously not evil, but please call a spade a spade. The picture is very much how it relates to the issue at hand, FOSS or lesser variants thereof. The evils are in one boat, and they will only let us swim and hold on to it.

That is very welcome sometimes, but it begs the question if not more could be achieved. Everyone for themselves in their little individual boat isn't largely the solution, a community system is.

Then the prison analogy. It does help somewhat to put criminals in jail, but thats not a good stragegy to rely solely on. Criminals we can do without are created by limits to freedom, just like education creates freedom. We cant help the criminals onto the right path in retrospect more so than we can send patches to drastic. I understand there are ups and downs, and I understand that choice, and rightfully so, is yours. One cant rely solely on DRM and surveilance, spying, its contrary to freedom. If you succeed in that, the society is no longer worth anything.

Obviously the analogy stops at human liberties. Society is ours, drastic is yours.

This is about the basics in that regards, we should not let system components limit us.

I understand we agree in that respect, but its not at all irrelevant that we do, that gives some merit to the idea of gnu.

Which is also a mangled picture. FSF paints its own face, and we need to tear it down rather than laugh at it.

 

[sswam]

it would be awesome if you people can direct some of this verbal energy toward something that might actually be useful

 

[Exophase]

it would be awesome if you people can direct some of this verbal energy toward something that might actually be useful

I type up long rants AND I do useful stuff, what do you do

 

[sswam]

haha, be happy Exophase.

I appreciate your posts ... e.g. the sampling theory one recently was very interesting.

But think how much more useful stuff (or pleasing recreation) you could be doing if not ranting about GNU- prefixes, what to call distros or whatever!

I can't be bothered to read all the long rant posts on such a topic as this, only the short posts...

I doubt even if the people who are ranting are bothering to carefully read each-other's longer posts...

Wall-of-text monologue vs monologue.

If you can justify taking the time to write all that, please take a little extra time to cut it down to size so more people might actually read it. Not talking to anyone in particular. Feel free to tell me "fuck off if you're not interested in the topic!"

 

[comradekingu]

Guess what, its pointelss to you, because you dont read the long posts. If you understand that you can grasp causation, and the posts are long because you need to keep 3 or more things in your head at once, that is correlation. Before this post gets long im going back and colour-coding the most important bits, again.

I do write posts to enlighten people, collect viewpoints, and learn.

 

[God Ginrai]

Just want you to share your opinion. If you read the whole thing i say I dont go off on tangents, but i paint a more

detailed picture than that, and say that its mangled, because it is. For example drastic enables me to play DS games in a manner i didn't have the ability to at the mercy of the vendor, Ninendo. That is a freedom.

And that story didn't start there, I see that as part of the community, which pre-dates it.

You are obviously not evil, but please call a spade a spade. The picture is very much how it relates to the issue at hand, FOSS or lesser variants thereof. The evils are in one boat, and they will only let us swim and hold on to it.

That is very welcome sometimes, but it begs the question if not more could be achieved. Everyone for themselves in their little individual boat isn't largely the solution, a community system is.

Then the prison analogy. It does help somewhat to put criminals in jail, but thats not a good stragegy to rely solely on. Criminals we can do without are created by limits to freedom, just like education creates freedom. We cant help the criminals onto the right path in retrospect more so than we can send patches to drastic. I understand there are ups and downs, and I understand that choice, and rightfully so, is yours. One cant rely solely on DRM and surveilance, spying, its contrary to freedom. If you succeed in that, the society is no longer worth anything.

Obviously the analogy stops at human liberties. Society is ours, drastic is yours.

This is about the basics in that regards, we should not let system components limit us.

I understand we agree in that respect, but its not at all irrelevant that we do, that gives some merit to the idea of gnu.

Which is also a mangled picture. FSF paints its own face, and we need to tear it down rather than laugh at it.

You know, DraStic, which you just said gives you freedoms, is closed source software. Are you calling Exophase evil? Even though you state he is not evil, you also mention elsewhere that closed source is evil and that Exophase should "call a spade a spade". I think you need to get some glasses so that you can see that some of these spades you are seeing are actually hearts.

-God Ginrai

 

[comradekingu]

You didn't think I knew that? Assume I did and read again.

 

[God Ginrai]

You didn't think I knew that? Assume I did and read again.

I did. And you still used a criminal analogy to talk to a person who closes his source. Sounds to me like you're trying to make him feel guilty.

-God Ginrai

 

[sebt3]

Proprietary software is the evil.

This (if nothing else) show you are talking about a religion.

Get your preachs elsewhere please.


This is pointless : you will convince nobody. At best you'll get some pissed about you.


Thanks

 

[comradekingu]

Reading comprehension works in mysterious ways.  _the_ evil, as opposed to anything else being the problem. Are you going to call me religious by picking at my choice of words?  Religion isn't by definition bad, fanaticism is. Do you not think I take an intellectual approach considering my whole argument, and not just the one quote taken out of context? Does this new light change anything for you?

God ginrai: read again.

Edit: has anyone seen this http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQ4MDU

Open hardware and free driver graphics. 1 million usd kickstarter tomorrow

 

[Klumpen]

comradekingu has beliefs and everyone else has some too, so whats the problem if he tells them?

Choice of words as it seems. Some people here communicate a bit harsh sometimes, but I do not think,

they they would ever punch someone in the face just for having different beliefs.

Do not get so upset about someone who seems to be upset, it just makes things uncomfortable.

 

[_wb_]

Sorry for the long post, but I'm trying to get this thread back on track.

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.

Two new points / potential issues have meanwhile been brought to attention: the GNU/Linux naming requirement, and the "no confusion with other [non-free] products" rule.

• GNU/Linux naming requirement: some of us are not happy with this requirement and consider it contradictory with ED's freedom of speech. In my opinion, it is the more appropriate name anyway (see below), so I think we should use that name anyway on the official web site and packaging. So in my opinion, it is not really an additional requirement imposed by the RYF certification, just something we would do anyway. But of course others may have different opinions on this. Even if you do see it as an additional requirement, it's not very hard to satisfy it. It's no more work than adding the obligatory ®'s if you would be shipping Microsoft® Windows®.

I understand (and even somewhat agree with) the point that we should not be told what name to use, but I still haven't seen any compelling arguments why "Linux" without the "GNU/" would actually be a better name to use (popularity/brand recognition is not really an argument, because you can still easily recognize the word "Linux" in "GNU/Linux": we're only adding information here, not removing). It's a bit weird to say "you shouldn't tell me how to call it, so you have to call it Linux and you cannot call it GNU/Linux!".

So why do I think GNU/Linux is the more appropriate name? Not just because it is historically and philosophically more accurate (and in terms of amount of code). In particular for something that looks like a small handheld gaming device, I think it is important to distinguish between simply "Linux" and "GNU/Linux", for the following reason.

On a laptop or desktop computer, when I hear or read "it runs Linux!" or "it runs GNU/Linux", there is not really a difference in my mind - in both cases I'm assuming I'm going to get a more or less fully fledged GNU/Linux distribution. On a small handheld device however, both names have a somewhat different ring to them in my mind. If you say "it runs Linux!" it means it is using a nice kernel, but for all I know, it could be a tivoized device that doesn't allow you to run whatever software you want - I can easily imagine a handheld gaming device that would work like that: imagine something like the Pandora, but you don't get root privileges and you're stuck in something like minimenu with only a small selection of "approved" software available to be launched. Yes, it would be running the Linux kernel, but it would not be an interesting device for me. However, if you say that the handheld device runs "GNU/Linux", it is immediately clear to me that I'm also going to get all the things I have come to expect, like getting a terminal in which I can type "./configure; make; sudo make install" so I can easily compile and install nearly anything in the world of FOSS.
 

• The "no confusion with other products" rule means that ED would not be allowed to also sell a non-free variant of the Pandora 2 (e.g. one that ships with a bunch of proprietary games pre-installed), unless it is easily distinguishable from the RYF-certified product. That means it would need to have a different name and packaging.

While I admit that this is indeed an actual limitation, I don't think it is a particularly stringent one. ED does not currently have this limitation, but still he does not seem to feel the need to sell different types of Pandoras with different pre-installed software. I don't really see why this would be different with a Pandora 2. But even if for some reason he would want to make a variant with non-free software bundled, I think it would still make more sense to make the non-free software a "separate product" (be it an SD card or something you can download for free or for a fee), of course with an easy install procedure that could include flashing the internal storage of the device so they don't have to dedicate an SD slot to it. Also note that Android can be fully free (see e.g. Replicant), so if ED really wants to ship a dual-boot GNU/Linux - Android (or even single-boot Android), it would be possible while still getting RYF certification. I would personally ship only one OS though, so it's clear which one is the "official"/"default" one, to avoid having to double the software support tasks, and to avoid fragmenting the community.

 

[sebt3]

comradekingu has beliefs and everyone else has some too, so whats the problem if he tells them?

Choice of words as it seems. Some people here communicate a bit harsh sometimes, but I do not think,

they they would ever punch someone in the face just for having different beliefs.

Do not get so upset about someone who seems to be upset, it just makes things uncomfortable.

He is free to state his beliefs. We'll agree on that. But how many posts is requiered to explain his beliefs ? I bet one should be enough. The others one are just arguing to try to convince anyone his beliefs are the only one valids. Beside all the reply he got, he haven't changed his opinion by a single dot. And finally arguing on the merit of the FSF is barely on topic here. I dont see a point of having 10 pages of posts about this and finally so few about the topic.All in all, in my eyes, he just hijacked a topic more or less related to his beliefs and try to convince his way is the only way.

BTW : I'm not pissed nor upset. Not at all. But this is becomming more and more ridiculus. His behaviour is rather counter-productive for his own goal. Forced freedom never worked and never will. Restating something again and again never made these more real to the eyes of others.

Reading comprehension works in mysterious ways. _the_ evil, as opposed to anything else being the problem. Are you going to call me religious by picking at my choice of words? Religion isn't by definition bad, fanaticism is. Do you not think I take an intellectual approach considering my whole argument, and not just the one quote taken out of context? Does this new light change anything for you?

It's not a matter of reading comprehension, it's a matter of disagreement on your behaviour. I find your goals worthy. Not your way.Your behaviour show that your beliefs are in the religious range. There is not way for you to accept that someone disagree with you. It doesnt seems possible for you to understand that some might be right to disagree with you. No matter hard you'll try to convince people, some wont agree. And some will have very good reason for doing so.

The world is not white and black. But there is a large spectrum of colors. Same things for the ideas.

Depicting close source software as always an evil show how reducted your mind is. There might be some good reason for doing so. Accept that.

Beside, trying to get only free software actually remove right from the devs. So you're revoking right to some to get more freedom to others ? That never worked and never will...

Nobody disagree on the merite of free software. But let the others colors live... (not doing so clearly show fanatism...)

EDIT: @_wb_ Sorry, that was my last off-topic post in that thread.

 

[comradekingu]

"Forced freedom never worked and never will. Restating something again and again never made these more real to the eyes of others." Quote it.

"Beside, trying to get only free software actually remove right from the devs. So you're revoking right to some to get more freedom to others ? That never worked and never will..." Again, quote it.

Are these two somehow related? I think again a long argument is being discarded with not much substance.

I understand there are ups and downs, and I understand that choice, and rightfully so, is yours.

My point is on topic, and it has to do with hardware. It is however not limited to hardware, and you have to make a software point of it, because, how could you not, the FSF until recently was a software only player. And the two are largely connected, which is probably why the FSF and others are getting into hardware.

Let me know what you think then, answer my question. Is it merely a theoretical point of principle, or does it actually apply to something? Because the freedom you relinquish with free software is the power to take one of those freedoms away. If you want to call them restrictions and what i call power abuse freedom, sure. But make the case, like i did. Does it apply to some kind of alternate reality where software isnt licensed, but the copyright-holders follows those just as guidelines? Either you follow them or you dont, it isnt more limiting than  _picking_ a license which requires it.

Back to the post, sometimes its me, I have poor command of English as a language. I try as best i can to make my case, and it seems it fails somewhere nonetheless.

This time around it was you, I did explain myself. Ill ask again, - based not only on that single part of my post that you singled out, what do you think about the rest of it? (In light of it not meaning what you think it did.)

I don't care if anyone agrees with me, when i do, its to establish that there is a shared understanding. All I want is constructive input. Communication. I respond to posts in a manner i expect of others.