"Respects Your Freedom" certification?

[WizardStan]

All I want is constructive input.

It's been pointed out that you're self-contradicting: you claim closed source is "the evil", yet Exophase and DraStic are excluded from this evil. It could be that you are saying something that is not being understood. If everyone is misunderstanding, however, it suggests that the problem is with your word choice. Listen to the input and rephrase or clarify your statements, start over to ensure you are properly understood.

 

[comradekingu]

I explained it, do i have to go back and change the wording to reflect that for someone to re-read the post and actually see its content?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evil  noun, nr 4. You are stating it was an adjective,and still then you are applying zero goodwill. The evil, not teh ev0l.

Your post just now only makes sense if you stick to your understanding of what i wrote, and not what is actually there. I dont know that i have to argue your case about what I mean... I would understand you could be confused if the word _the_ wasnt there, to begin with. But i did explain it in a separate post, so there is nothing to be confused about. As for making the drastic example, it was to explain that I understand that it isnt black and white, its mangled. Instead of getting into circular logic, read again and ask, or dont. If you do, try to reply to what is actually there. I try to write balanced, if i make a point, i often expand on it afterwards and raise countering views and conclude.  Which one is it, either im preaching, or im so balanced people lose direction...

 

[WizardStan]

I explained it, do i have to go back and change the wording to reflect that for someone to re-read the post and actually see its content?

You explained it in a way that people are having trouble understanding it. That is usually a sign that YOU have used poor word choice, it doesn't mean that EVERYONE ELSE has poor reading comprehension.So yes, you have to go back and change the wording. Or more specifically restate in a new post, leaving the original untouched; A good debate abhors any form of censorship, including altering history. Don't write too much at once, there's no need to explain everything, just focus on one part at a time and don't get pulled in different directions. Walls-of-text which attempt to make many different points at once are a surefire way of being misunderstood.

 

[God Ginrai]

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!".

We never said you have to call it Linux. You can call it GNU/Linux all you want. Continue to believe that's the right way to refer to it if that is what makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. But we should not be required to call it GNU/Linux.

-God Ginrai

 

[bzar]

"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.

Just to offer some useful terms for the conversation:

1. Liberty rights are rights to not be denied by others from doing X
2. Claim rights are rights to deny others from doing X

Put another way: the four freedoms FSF is after sacrifice developers' claim rights to gain liberty rights for users.

It seemed these two got mixed up a couple of times so I thought these terms could help

Carry on.

 

[Grench]

I'm not advocating this, but using it as a case-basis.

What if the Pandora successor were to ship with 4 operating systems pre-installed in a 64GB onboard flash.  In this example:

1.  A FOSS Gnu/Linux distribution

2.  Ubuntu

3.  Android with Google Play pre-installed, requiring registration/activation to use.

4.  MS Windows - requiring registration/purchase of an activation key.

The end user has the ultimate freedom of choice.  The FSF would reject this from an RYF perspective.

Even if the user is allowed to remove the OS(s) that they do not want to use, it would fail RYF.

Even if you remove option 4, it would fail RYF.  Even with just the 'free' 2 & 3 options, it would fail RYF.

FSF/RYF does -not- respect freedom of choice nor freedom of speech.  It mandates speech it it's favor, requires pre-approval of speech by it's members, works from closed/sealed/non-public contracts, etc...

FOSS is good.  Kittens and babies are cute.  That doesn't mean we have or need to join a club/organization/cult/program to agree with those statements or surrender real freedoms to show our solidarity with others who think so.

Consumer Reports - a magazine & company here in the US - purchases products from retailers, reviews them, grades them and gives stamps of approval/disapproval.  They don't ask permission - and they don't let companies 'buy in' or require them to sign contracts to join their organization to get approval.  That is how the FSF/RYF -should- work.  This join to sacrifice freedoms and autonomy thing is for the birds.

Again, entirely not worth it.

 

[SageX]

no windows please, I' take my GNU+Linux with a splash of coffee

 

[God Ginrai]

It was a hypothetical to illustrate a point.

-God Ginrai

 

[Grench]

no windows please, I' take my GNU+Linux with a splash of coffee

Your statement would have failed FSF/RYF approval.

"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."" http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria

 

[Exophase]

Even Stallman is okay with "GNU+Linux." I think the writer did a poor job expressing real intent there - which is a pretty unfortunate thing when writing a requirements document since it's binding. How about GNU\Linux? Will that get sneers because it makes people think of DOS path separators vs UNIX ones? Will it cause controversy over the spoken "GNU slash Linux" becoming more ambiguous, or will you simply be expected to say "GNU backslash Linux" to differentiate?

I really do seriously still wonder how FSF feels about "Linux/GNU."

It was a hypothetical to illustrate a point.

-God Ginrai

This thread has taught me that mentioning something as a device in an illustration or analogy is an invitation to hear everyone's complete ideological position on that thing.

 

[comradekingu]

We cant ship windows due to license fees to MS, we cant ship Android due to license fees to MS. The alternative is replicant android. I dont personally have a problem with contributing monetary support back to the OS, but that must be worth it. Sinking money into MS is just not on.

I would not be surprised if bundling gnu/linux was against the terms of the windows license, and slapping people with an EULA on installation is not smooth, nor is many options out of the box.

If its good, sure, but just many of the same is redundant, why couldnt it be just the one like now. If you want anything else you are very free to do so, like now and stated in the RYF.

I suppose GNU+Linux is fine Should ask FSF about Linux/GNU.

One does not have to apply to get RYF certification, they do it if it applies anyway. The contract is if you want to use their brand name and logo "RYF" in marketing. Their take on it is trying to guide their users to make good purchases.

 

[God Ginrai]

It was a hypothetical to illustrate a point.

-God Ginrai

This thread has taught me that mentioning something as a device in an illustration or analogy is an invitation to hear everyone's complete ideological position on that thing.

 It's sad how right you are, Exophase:

We cant ship windows due to license fees to MS, we cant ship Android due to license fees to MS. The alternative is replicant android. I dont personally have a problem with contributing monetary support back to the OS, but that must be worth it. Sinking money into MS is just not on.

*shakes head*

-God Ginrai

 

[comradekingu]

Use your words. *nods head*

 

[God Ginrai]

Use your words. *nods head*

How about reading Grench's post more carefully before you make pointless posts about it, instead?

I've quoted the relevant portion from right before he mentions Windows and bolded the important words to take note of:

What if the Pandora successor were to ship with 4 operating systems pre-installed in a 64GB onboard flash. In this example:

-God Ginrai

 

[_wb_]

Even Stallman is okay with "GNU+Linux." I think the writer did a poor job expressing real intent there - which is a pretty unfortunate thing when writing a requirements document since it's binding. How about GNU\Linux? Will that get sneers because it makes people think of DOS path separators vs UNIX ones? Will it cause controversy over the spoken "GNU slash Linux" becoming more ambiguous, or will you simply be expected to say "GNU backslash Linux" to differentiate?

Actually that requirements page is not binding, it's there just to give you a general idea. It starts by saying "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."

About the example of Grench: that example would be like selling a combo pack of tofu, cheese, fish sticks and bacon and then complaining that you cannot get the combo pack certified as "100% vegan" - even though it's clear that as a vegan, you can just throw everything but the tofu in the garbage bin and voila, you have your vegan thing! while meanwhile, the vegetarians and the meat-lovers get to enjoy more stuff when they buy the combo pack so it's obviously a win-win situation and the vegan certification agency is just being silly and not respecting our freedom to eat what we want.

 

[Neelix]

About the example of Grench: that example would be like selling a combo pack of tofu, cheese, fish sticks and bacon and then complaining that you cannot get the combo pack certified as "100% vegan" - even though it's clear that as a vegan, you can just throw everything but the tofu in the garbage bin and voila, you have your vegan thing! while meanwhile, the vegetarians and the meat-lovers get to enjoy more stuff when they buy the combo pack so it's obviously a win-win situation and the vegan certification agency is just being silly and not respecting our freedom to eat what we want.

The vegan diet is by definition a restricted diet.   a 100% vegan label means it fits within vegan restrictions.

If that analogy is applicable then perhaps this certification should be called the "FSF Complience"  certification, given that the FSF seems to have a very skewed definition of freedom.

- Neelix

 

[comradekingu]

Its like telling your vegan friend you ordered steak and only ate the vegetables to teach the world a lesson.

Neelix,

This minefield is certified 100% safe, because you can chose not to step on the few mines that arent cleared.

And people should obviously be allowed to re-mine the area.

Its an _analogy_

 

[Neelix]

You entirely missed my point.    _wb_'s analogy equated freedom with an inherently non-free system.   This does not compute, no matter how you modify the analogy.

- Neelix

 

[_wb_]

About the example of Grench: that example would be like selling a combo pack of tofu, cheese, fish sticks and bacon and then complaining that you cannot get the combo pack certified as "100% vegan" - even though it's clear that as a vegan, you can just throw everything but the tofu in the garbage bin and voila, you have your vegan thing! while meanwhile, the vegetarians and the meat-lovers get to enjoy more stuff when they buy the combo pack so it's obviously a win-win situation and the vegan certification agency is just being silly and not respecting our freedom to eat what we want.

The vegan diet is by definition a restricted diet.   a 100% vegan label means it fits within vegan restrictions.

If that analogy is applicable then perhaps this certification should be called the "FSF Complience"  certification, given that the FSF seems to have a very skewed definition of freedom.

The FSF does have a pretty specific definition of what they consider to be essential to software freedom: basically the freedom to run, distribute, modify and redistribute modifications. I think those freedoms are indeed the relevant ones when you're talking about being able to do whatever you want with your software and hardware. Obviously FSF's concept of software freedom is not meant to be a substitute for the general notion of freedom.

Of course every freedom is also a restriction. The vegan diet means more freedom for animals, at the price of more restrictions to animal eaters. The abolition of slavery meant more freedom for the slaves, but it obviously restricted slave owners in their options. FSF's kind of "Free Software" means more freedom for users and devs, but it restricts those that don't want to give users and devs those freedoms.

The kind of freedom Grench is talking about, is the freedom to chain yourself. Sure, that is a nice freedom - it's always nice to keep your options open. The FSF or the RYF certification does not take away that freedom - just like buying a package of "100% Vegan" tofu doesn't mean that you cannot buy a steak too. It's perfectly fine to buy a piece of hardware that "Respects Your Freedom", and then install a bunch of proprietary software on it, if that's what you want to do.

But what the FSF does not allow you say, is that proprietary software "Respects Your Freedom" (or that the steak is "100% Vegan"). I think that makes sense.

 

[Neelix]

This minefield is certified 100% safe, because you can chose not to step on the few mines that arent cleared.

Come to think of it,  Freedom != Safety either.   Freedom offers the choice of taking the risk of blowing yourself up. 

The kind of freedom Grench is talking about, is the freedom to chain yourself. Sure, that is a nice freedom - it's always nice to keep your options open. The FSF or the RYF certification does not take away that freedom - just like buying a package of "100% Vegan" tofu doesn't mean that you cannot buy a steak too. It's perfectly fine to buy a piece of hardware that "Respects Your Freedom", and then install a bunch of proprietary software on it, if that's what you want to do.

But what the FSF does not allow you say, is that proprietary software "Respects Your Freedom" (or that the steak is "100% Vegan"). I think that makes sense.

But the label is "Respects your freedom" not "100% Free".    To me that says "Includes a vegan option"  rather than "100% vegan".

- Neelix