"Respects Your Freedom" certification?

[_wb_]

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".

I see your point, but it seems like what you want is a label "Optionally respects your freedom" or "Contains free software".

If I were a vegan, I wouldn't think it were very useful to have a label "includes vegan ingredients". I would want a guarantee that all the ingredients are vegan, not just some of them.

Consider a clothes label "child labor free", and suppose you can buy an ensemble consisting of pants, a suit, and a hat. The pants and the suit were produced without child labor, but the hat was made by some 8 year old kid in some sweat shop. Would you give the label to that ensemble, saying "well, if you don't like child labor, just throw away the hat, it's an optional accessory anyway"? Would you interpret the label as "includes a child labor free dress style option"? I wouldn't.

 

[Neelix]

If I were a vegan, I wouldn't think it were very useful to have a label "includes vegan ingredients". I would want a guarantee that all the ingredients are vegan, not just some of them.

*shakes head*   Nor would I,   however in a multi-pack with discretely packaged items, (which is closer to what Grench was suggesting)  It would be useful to say "Contains some vegan items"  as long as the discrete packages are appropriately marked.

- Neelix

edit:

see your point, but it seems like what you want is a label "Optionally respects your freedom" or "Contains free software".

No,  I'm saying that if it doesn't respect my freedom to use proprietary software if I should choose to do so, then it doesn't respect my freedom at all.

 

[comradekingu]

The pronoun "your" as in you, _the user_, seeing the RYF label and reading that. Hence, your software freedoms, that the device provides. Of which is strictly, but not limited to, device drivers. If you want something that doesn't respect those software freedoms, you are even free to install those. Its just that you aren't bundled with those by default. Which is why the certification makes sense. It cant be both, and it has to be one or the other, respectively [free _or_ non-free] and [your freedom _or_ someone being at the liberty to take those away from you].

You have to change the very nature of the software freedoms for that not to make sense. And yes, they are user freedoms. If everyone is the user nobody is above user freedoms.

Edit: or the label "ships with all possible variations over the theme freedom, pick what you are most comfortable with"

 

[Grench]

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

To continue your food analogy...

True 'freedom' is a buffet with vegan, kosher, gluten free, meat, soup, bread, etc...  Freedom is allowing the end user -choice-.

The FSF/RYF version of freedom is like a militant vegan that breaks into a restaurant and steals peoples steak and cheeseburgers because it offends them.

[Comedy]

I like vegetarians.  Cows are vegetarians.  Vegetarians are delicious.  Have you ever noticed that when a vegetarian visits for dinner, the non-vegetarian host is expected to cook a vegetarian dinner.  When a meat eater visits the vegetarian for dinner - where's the beef?  It's downright disrespectful.

[/Comedy]

Freedom does not entail allowing a select few to get 'just what they want' and forcing the rest of the world to their choice.  That is totalitarianism, not freedom.

 

[Klumpen]

Everything I cook and serve is vegan and nobody has a problem with that, so the opposite would be stupid even if I were a devourer of flesh.

 

[Grench]

Everything I cook and serve is vegan and nobody has a problem with that, so the opposite would be stupid even if I were a devourer of flesh.

No, they're just being polite and humoring you.  They would much rather eat a steak.

The human digestive system is much more like that of a lion than it is like that of a cow.  Humans omnivores, but they border on carnivore.  You can survive on Dog Chow (carnivore) but would die on Horse Chow (Vegetarian).

Enjoy your choice of food - it likely makes you feel better/superior to the rest of us.  I'll enjoy my steak with mushrooms and a side of veg.  Isn't having a freedom of personal choice great?

Now, have we plumbed that rabbit hole enough?  Rabbits are delicious by the way...

 

[Klumpen]

I do not know what this bullshit post was all about,

I just wanted to underline the metaphor and the fact that the common denominator is the best choice and everything else is just selfish,

but it had to be used by some militant animal torturer to underline how weak and unnatural vegetarianism and veganism is in his (not very educated) opinion.

 

[Grench]

I do not know what this bullshit post was all about,

I just wanted to underline the metaphor and the fact that the common denominator is the best choice and everything else is just selfish,

but it had to be used by some militant animal torturer to underline how weak and unnatural vegetarianism and veganism is in his (not very educated) opinion.

No, you consider the common denominator to be what -you- want since what you want is on the list of 'acceptable once in a while' to the other.  You assume that since they're in common, that by excluding the rest of the other's choices that they should be 'happy'.

That is selfish by definition.  You get what you want, but the others must to acquiesce to your will.

Back to our topic parallel...

The freedoms of choice and inclusion and speech and association are all given up in part with the FSF/RYF program.  You could liken them to a vegetarian at an international buffet who runs around putting lids & locks on everything they won't eat in order to 'protect' everyone else from what, to the vegetarian, would make them a 'militant animal torturer'.

 

[Klumpen]

The common demoninator is what everyone can live with and in the example the omnivores would also eat the veggie food,

this has nothing to do with what one group wants especcially, but what everybody can eat/live with and the fact that you always have to reduce the offer in any way, because you cannot serve 10 different dishes.

BTW: I cannot eat something while it smells of dead animals everywhere anymore and that is not a decision, so this would be a bad idea even IF someone is willing to serve 10 dishes, which is very unlikely.

It's about compatibility.

 

[bsp]

Hmm..quite an intense discussion going on here for some time now.

I am wondering, though: Is this all just theory or do we really have a choice?

If there were two platforms/boards, both achieving the same performance, differing only in the availability of FOSS drivers (i.e. one has a full set of FOSS drivers, the other one only an incomplete one/some CS drivers), who in his or her right mind would opt for the closed source platform ?

Doesn't this boil down to: How much performance/features are we willing to sacrifice to earn the RYF certification ?

For example, are there any platforms with a free-as-in-speech, properly optimized, full featured open source GPU driver ?

p.s. I assume that other (closed source) userspace software is not really an issue since it's just an option and not a vital part of the OS/firmware.

 

[Grench]

The common demoninator is what everyone can live with and in the example the omnivores would also eat the veggie food,

this has nothing to do with what one group wants especcially, but what everybody can eat/live with and the fact that you always have to reduce the offer in any way, because you cannot serve 10 different dishes.

BTW: I cannot eat something while it smells of dead animals everywhere anymore and that is not a decision, so this would be a bad idea even IF someone is willing to serve 10 dishes, which is very unlikely.

It's about compatibility.

So, as long as you get your way everyone else should just go along with that.  Mmm...  No thanks.

Hmm..quite an intense discussion going on here for some time now.

I am wondering, though: Is this all just theory or do we really have a choice?

If there were two platforms/boards, both achieving the same performance, differing only in the availability of FOSS drivers (i.e. one has a full set of FOSS drivers, the other one only an incomplete one/some CS drivers), who in his or her right mind would opt for the closed source platform ?

Doesn't this boil down to: How much performance/features are we willing to sacrifice to earn the RYF certification ?

For example, are there any platforms with a free-as-in-speech, properly optimized, full featured open source GPU driver ?

p.s. I assume that other (closed source) userspace software is not really an issue since it's just an option and not a vital part of the OS/firmware.

I agree - if the FOSS alternative is there, and is truly equal - great.  No need to apply for a special club membership though - and no reason to force out the other alternatives for that platform.

The closest SoC I'm aware of to the combined FOSS & non-FOSS compatible dream is the Intel Z3000 series.  However, many of the same voices promoting FOSS and FSF/RYF are against that one simply because it is X86 at it's core.

I'm not willing to give up ANY performance or features for RYF certification.  None - nothing as I consider the certification itself to have far too many requirements and sacrifices of freedom and choice.  Yes, if the device can be made in a way that it is 100% FOSS on a driver and hardware level - great!  That should not in and of itself -prevent- the device to ship with both free and non-free alternatives.

Yes, there is one platform with free-as-in-speech, properly optimized, full featured open source GPU driver (In theory - need examples in the market to find out for sure).  That is the Z3770 SoC from Intel.

To the p.s...  Exactly - having the closed source software as an -option-, shipped on the device (Full on Google Android install?) in parallel with a FOSS version of Linux and a mainstream distribution (Ubuntu, Debian, Slack, other?) , and even a directory or small partition full of Windows drivers for the hardware - that is freedom.  Requiring anything that isn't FOSS to be excluded despite there being a FOSS option -included on the device- would violate the conditions for FSF/RYF approval.

FSF/RYF removes options.  It sacrifices true freedom in order to get a 'Freedom' stamp.  Entirely not worth it.

 

[_wb_]

Hmm..quite an intense discussion going on here for some time now.

I am wondering, though: Is this all just theory or do we really have a choice?

If there were two platforms/boards, both achieving the same performance, differing only in the availability of FOSS drivers (i.e. one has a full set of FOSS drivers, the other one only an incomplete one/some CS drivers), who in his or her right mind would opt for the closed source platform ?

Doesn't this boil down to: How much performance/features are we willing to sacrifice to earn the RYF certification ?

For example, are there any platforms with a free-as-in-speech, properly optimized, full featured open source GPU driver ?

p.s. I assume that other (closed source) userspace software is not really an issue since it's just an option and not a vital part of the OS/firmware.

I guess BayTrail would be a candidate. For ARM SoCs, I don't think there is any that has a vendor-supported open source GPU driver (except maybe tegra? dunno), but there is quite some progress on FOSS drivers for Mali and Adreno - basically anything except PowerVR.

So I don't think we really need to sacrifice any performance or features to be able to get RYF certification.

The only "sacrifices" we would have to make, would be to have to call the OS "GNU/Linux" on the website and on the cardboard box, and to not be able to ship non-free software pre-installed on the hardware (although it would be no problem to ship it separately or to make it available for download).

 

[Exophase]

I don't think there is any that has a vendor-supported open source GPU driver (except maybe tegra? dunno)

No for Tegra.

So are we in consensus that calling it Linux\GNU would be a bad idea?

 

[_wb_]

To the p.s...  Exactly - having the closed source software as an -option-, shipped on the device (Full on Google Android install?) in parallel with a FOSS version of Linux and a mainstream distribution (Ubuntu, Debian, Slack, other?) , and even a directory or small partition full of Windows drivers for the hardware - that is freedom.  Requiring anything that isn't FOSS to be excluded despite there being a FOSS option -included on the device- would violate the conditions for FSF/RYF approval.

FSF/RYF removes options.  It sacrifices true freedom in order to get a 'Freedom' stamp.  Entirely not worth it.

Let's be realistic here. Getting our little niche device approved by Google or Microsoft is going to be way more trouble than getting FSF approval. Do you think Microsoft would even allow a dual-boot GNU/Linux - Windows setup? They tend to demand exclusivity. If you can even convince them to support something like this at all.

What closed source software exactly would you want to have pre-installed so badly anyway? Is it really that important that it is pre-installed, is it really too much effort to manually install something? What killer app is it that you want to have pre-installed on the device, and for which there is absolutely no FOSS alternative? Let's make this discussion a bit more to the point, because I'm getting a bit tired of discussing your abstract notions of "true freedom".

 

[Grench]

Hmm..quite an intense discussion going on here for some time now.

I am wondering, though: Is this all just theory or do we really have a choice?

If there were two platforms/boards, both achieving the same performance, differing only in the availability of FOSS drivers (i.e. one has a full set of FOSS drivers, the other one only an incomplete one/some CS drivers), who in his or her right mind would opt for the closed source platform ?

Doesn't this boil down to: How much performance/features are we willing to sacrifice to earn the RYF certification ?

For example, are there any platforms with a free-as-in-speech, properly optimized, full featured open source GPU driver ?

p.s. I assume that other (closed source) userspace software is not really an issue since it's just an option and not a vital part of the OS/firmware.

I guess BayTrail would be a candidate. For ARM SoCs, I don't think there is any that has a vendor-supported open source GPU driver (except maybe tegra? dunno), but there is quite some progress on FOSS drivers for Mali and Adreno - basically anything except PowerVR.

So I don't think we really need to sacrifice any performance or features to be able to get RYF certification.

The only "sacrifices" we would have to make, would be to have to call the OS "GNU/Linux" on the website and on the cardboard box, and to not be able to ship non-free software pre-installed on the hardware (although it would be no problem to ship it separately or to make it available for download).

Bay Trail, if you look at the specifics, appears to be a -perfect- candidate.  It's like someone asked, "What would Intel have to produce for the SoC to be exactly what the Pandora successor needs?"  It's really weird.

Add to your list of sacrifices to join the FSF...

Autonomy - all marketing and packaging materials would need to be vetted by the FSF.

Speech - all references to the certified product must promote and include exact phrases approved by the FSF.

Money - The FSF certification is not free.  Membership dues and penalty fund?

Openness - The FSF works on and through closed/private contracts & licenses.

There is nothing stopping the project from creating the most open, choice filled, product ever and NOT engaging with the FSF.  There is no underlying benefit for joining the FSF, and many reasons not to.

Still entirely not worth it.

 

[Grench]

To the p.s...  Exactly - having the closed source software as an -option-, shipped on the device (Full on Google Android install?) in parallel with a FOSS version of Linux and a mainstream distribution (Ubuntu, Debian, Slack, other?) , and even a directory or small partition full of Windows drivers for the hardware - that is freedom.  Requiring anything that isn't FOSS to be excluded despite there being a FOSS option -included on the device- would violate the conditions for FSF/RYF approval.

FSF/RYF removes options.  It sacrifices true freedom in order to get a 'Freedom' stamp.  Entirely not worth it.

Let's be realistic here. Getting our little niche device approved by Google or Microsoft is going to be way more trouble than getting FSF approval. Do you think Microsoft would even allow a dual-boot GNU/Linux - Windows setup? They tend to demand exclusivity. If you can even convince them to support something like this at all.

What closed source software exactly would you want to have pre-installed so badly anyway? Is it really that important that it is pre-installed, is it really too much effort to manually install something? What killer app is it that you want to have pre-installed on the device, and for which there is absolutely no FOSS alternative? Let's make this discussion a bit more to the point, because I'm getting a bit tired of discussing your abstract notions of "true freedom".

I don't think we need 'approval' from -anyone-.  Not Google, Not Microsoft, Not the FSF.

For Google Android - Pre-Install Cyanogen on it's own partition.

For Microsoft - Provide the manufacturer's MS compatible drivers for the SoC (likely proprietary) and a nifty installer program to let users do as they please with legally purchased software - that they would have to acquire.

For Ubuntu or Debian or other - Pre-Install it.  Allow the user a single-icon launch to get the excluded extras.

On the package, advertise:

Full installs of Android & Ubuntu Linux included!

Fully FOSS compliant version of Gnu/Linux Included!

Can run Windows! - additional purchase necessary.

Give the user ultimate freedom - choice.  You don't need to join a club to do that.

 

[bsp]

okay, found the /. article which mentioned that there are indeed GPLd GPU drivers available already. That's very cool.

I guess we would have to wait for Merrifield then since the BayTrail is not meant for Pandora sized devices ?!

Btw, yesterday I found out about the CuBox [http://solid-run.com/] which uses the iMX6 platform -- looks nice, too.

They claim 3W max at full load. Someone is supposedly working on open source drivers for the Vivante GPU but I have no idea if this development is backed by a company or if it's just some hobbyists. If it's the latter, I would not expect a competitive/performant driver implementation (too much work).

About the GNU/Linux thing: You have discussed this thoroughly and I can understand both sides. My personal view: I don't care too much whether the fine print on the box reads "Linux" or "GNU/Linux", the RYF certificate is more interesting (but not interesting enough for actual sacrifices).

Last but not least, the best platform, in terms of price/features+efficiency ratio, should be picked. Open source GPU drivers are cool but general power efficiency is more important to me. The Intel platform looks promising, though.

EDIT:

Add to your list of sacrifices to join the FSF...

Autonomy - all marketing and packaging materials would need to be vetted by the FSF.

Speech - all references to the certified product must promote and include exact phrases approved by the FSF.

Money - The FSF certification is not free.  Membership dues and penalty fund?

Openness - The FSF works on and through closed/private contracts & licenses.

in that case a small project like OP should not care for the RYF.

EDIT: although, it's just "$120.00 per year". Is this tax-deductible?

EDIT#2: In the USA, it is.

EDIT#3: From what I understand, in Europe, too.

Let's be realistic here. Getting our little niche device approved by Google or Microsoft is going to be way more trouble than getting FSF approval

Grench's arguments convinced me. I initially thought that the RYF certificate was truly free with not so many strings attached.

EDIT#4: Has anyone here actually contacted the FSF about the details, e.g. "exact phrases approved by the FSF" ?

 

[_wb_]

You can also ship it with a FSF-compliant GNU/Linux distro and a FSF-compliant Android version. You can put on the box that it can run Windows (at least if that is true). That would still be compatible with RYF-certification.

 

[_wb_]

Add to your list of sacrifices to join the FSF...

Autonomy - all marketing and packaging materials would need to be vetted by the FSF.

Speech - all references to the certified product must promote and include exact phrases approved by the FSF.

Money - The FSF certification is not free.  Membership dues and penalty fund?

Openness - The FSF works on and through closed/private contracts & licenses.

in that case a small project like OP should not care for the RYF.

I'm quite confident that the FSF would take into account that this is a small-scale project with not a lot of money to spare. It can probably be negotiated that we can get the certification for free (as in beer) or at least very cheaply.

Also the issue of openness is a non-issue: ED could easily put the terms of the contract publicly on this forum, and we could (and should, imo) discuss it openly before it gets finalized as well. The FSF just gives you the option to keep it a private contract between the hardware vendor and the FSF. I bet that if the FSF would instead demand that the terms of the contract would be made public, he would say that the FSF is reducing ED's freedom to keep those terms secret.

 

[Grench]

You can also ship it with a FSF-compliant GNU/Linux distro and a FSF-compliant Android version. You can put on the box that it can run Windows (at least if that is true). That would still be compatible with RYF-certification.

How is the, "FSF-compliant Android version" different from something more common like Cyanogen?  What has to be left out?  If it requires leaving out the Google Play store - I'd say that's a non-starter argument.  It would mean, from an end user perspective, a crippled version of Android.