"Respects Your Freedom" certification?

[bsp]

This discussion is all theory, anyway. It has not even been decided _if_ a P2 will be developed and what hardware such a hypothetical successor will contain, right ?

You cannot go wrong with chosing hardware that has FOSS drivers for every aspect of it. The merits of that should be clear to everyone.

However, if e.g. a FOSS GPU driver of such a hardware would be inferior to the closed source version, I for one would use the CS driver until the open one has matured.

If a P2 was designed with such openess in mind, getting a RYF certificate (or not) can be discussed after development is done.

The FSF could then be approached and details could be discussed. If there actually are any unbearable restrictions a RYF certificate would impose on the project, the FSF could either ease up and happily add the P2 to its - currently not very long - list of RYF platforms, or not do that and we would invent our own certificate (what about ROFL - Respects Our Freedom and Liberty).

 

[Neelix]

That makes sense to me.  Try to get hardware that will qualify,  and ensure there's an OS option that will qualify,  and then we can worry about what other paths we wish to follow.

While the specifics of the certification may not be a good fit for us,  I think that the spirit of what it is supposed to represent is,  so aiming to create a device which would qualify for it is still a good course of action.

- Neelix

Edit:  I'm also not opposed to at least entering discussions with the FSF once we have an appropriate product.  From the wording on their website it sounds like there's room for negotiation when it comes to the actual agreement that would go with the certification.   With so few devices qualifying for the certification as it is they might be willing to grant us a bit of flexibility when it comes to specifics as long as the spirit of the certification is honoured.

 

[Grench]

 

[Løra (Lolla)]

@Grench: I have to say that last quote might well be relevant to the discussion, topic-wise, but I do believe it's bad etiquette to post copy and pasted private messages. Especially without the sender's permission beforehand.

 

[Grench]

 

[Grench]

@Grench: I have to say that last quote might well be relevant to the discussion, topic-wise, but I do believe it's bad etiquette to post copy and pasted private messages. Especially without the sender's permission beforehand.

I agree with you on that in principle. However, in this case there was nothing personal involved and I see no real benefit to having a private conversation on this. It effects the project as a whole.

Thank you for your concern though.

 

[moxie]

This is becoming somewhat ridiculous. Grench, you are not talking about the same things as everybody else here is, and it seems you are completely failing to understand this. In addition, you are making shit up, as WizardStan so lovingly put it, and are acting rather - whatstheword? Agressively? - when people do not accept your made-up scenarios as truth. Now, it is everybodys right to be wrong on the internet, but this is frankly becoming boring. Could you pretty please with a cherry on top take a deep breath, actually read the posts you are responding to and try to fathom what they are saying before you reply next time? It would, again as WizardStan pointed out, have ended this thread twelve pages ago. Or possibly allowed it to proceed in a vaguely constructive direction, instead of this.

As for posting private messages without the permission of the other party...That is a big nono in most any reasonable society, online or offline. Don't do that. I will have to consult with others, but that is usually considered a rather grave offense. And in that it does not matter whether you found it interesting or relevant or whatever - The idea of a private message is that, in contrast to the public message, the participants have just reason to assume that the conversation will stay out of the public eye unless something else is agreed upon. That is kinda the definition of "private". The decision to change that assumption is never on one side of the exchange.

 

[Løra (Lolla)]

@Moxie: Hear hear. Well said!


@Grench: In reply to your response to me - the last part of what Moxie said

 

[Grench]

This is becoming somewhat ridiculous. Grench, you are not talking about the same things as everybody else here is, and it seems you are completely failing to understand this.

I am replying directly to questions and statements directed to me. What are YOU doing?

In addition, you are making shit up

Please prove it. Please find something, somewhere, from the FSF that directly contradicts the statements that I have made. Not from another person on here, but something actually from the FSF stating that we can ship the device WITH RYF certification WITH Ubuntu WITH a directory full of Windows drivers and WITHOUT the need to vet packaging, advertising and public statements through the FSF. Show me that please. I have linked directly to statements on the FSF's RYF site that back my claims.

, as WizardStan so lovingly put it, and are acting rather - whatstheword? Agressively? - when people do not accept your made-up scenarios as truth.

Please prove I made them up. Please find some statement from the FSF that states, unequivocally, that they do not require the exact things that they list on their RYF requirements web site.

Now, it is everybodys right to be wrong on the internet, but this is frankly becoming boring. Could you pretty please with a cherry on top take a deep breath, actually read the posts you are responding to and try to fathom what they are saying before you reply next time? It would, again as WizardStan pointed out, have ended this thread twelve pages ago. Or possibly allowed it to proceed in a vaguely constructive direction, instead of this.

The only direction I see as 'constructive' is to laugh and point at anyone who thinks that joining the FSF to get RYF certification is a 'good idea' because, "Everyone likes FreedomTM Mkay?"

As for posting private messages without the permission of the other party...That is a big nono in most any reasonable society, online or offline. Don't do that. I will have to consult with others, but that is usually considered a rather grave offense. And in that it does not matter whether you found it interesting or relevant or whatever - The idea of a private message is that, in contrast to the public message, the participants have just reason to assume that the conversation will stay out of the public eye unless something else is agreed upon. That is kinda the definition of "private". The decision to change that assumption is never on one side of the exchange.

Nope. If you make an unsolicited call to me or send me a message out of the blue without any pre-agreement, it is my right to record, display or otherwise use that in my own best judgment in how I use the information that you provided without my request.
There is no assumption of privacy on the internet. There is a civil expectation of being polite. I re-read and debated on whether to bring that information into the main discussion, saw no harm that could come from it and did so as I have no interest in carrying on a private conversation with him (or anyone) on this topic.

Now, can we quit making this about me and actually discuss whether having the project give up real freedom to join the FSF in order to get a FreedomTM sticker to put on the box is a good idea or not?

 

[WizardStan]

I haven't - and I have not had to

You did, it was pointed out several times.

There has been NO valid reasons given why this project should give up ANY freedom for ANY certifications other than those required by governing bodies in the markets that it is intended to sell in. The real loss for doing so is much greater than any perceived gain.

Irrelevant. I stopped trying to argue that the RYF would be good a long time ago. All I've been doing for the last dozen pages is pointing out where you're wrong.

And as I stated back then, you are making a complete apples and cog gear comparison.

No I'm not. You say you are against the RYF and the FSF because it restricts freedom of speech. Period. That is the crux of your argument. No additional lines to it, the fact that it restricts freedom at all is what you are repeatedly railing against.This is obviously not what you actually believe. As you pointed out, you are not against the restriction of freedoms when engaging in advertising. Sugar coat it however you want, they are restrictions. That is the overlap between the two points. You cannot be universally opposed to restricted freedoms in one case and then be ok with it in another and still be logically consistent. The answer is that you aren't. You are only opposed to it in this specific case because of other circumstances surrounding it.

You state, "expansions on freedom" when what is really there is a "removal of existing freedom".

Yeah, you completely misunderstood that entire paragraph. Like, entirely. You didn't even come close and I can't tell if that's because you're genuinely getting over flustered and missed it or if I screwed it up. Please calm yourself and reread it and if you still don't understand then I'll try again.

How about this one? "Cooperation with FSF and GNU Public Relations The seller must use FSF approved terminology for the FSF's activities and work, in all statements and publications relating to the product. This includes product packaging, and manuals, web pages, marketing materials, and interviews about the product."

YES! Exactly! You're almost understanding even while completely missing the point, but we're getting there. That was pointed out several pages ago by someone who isn't you. When it was pointed out several people previously in favour of RYF, self included, began reconsidering. Note that what you have done here is a direct quote. You didn't try to hype it up and turn it into a bunch of FUD about having to dilute the repo or the necessary evils of not being able to say certain things, or any of the other things you said. In the future keep doing that, point out the specific things that you are against without resorting to hyperbole. The more wild the hypothetical situation you try to concoct the easier it will be to prove that you're wrong.This is exactly what I meant when I likened you to the conspiracy theorist: you were right, the RYF is not good for us, but not because of anything you actually said. Nothing you previously said about advertising closed source applications or how it would affect the repository was actually based in reality. You were right about the overall thing but it was others who brought up relevant passages that no one else had read. If you had done this from the start we wouldn't even be here. Instead you kept using the same debunked arguments over and over and over while myself, Moxie, and _wb_ were all trying to simply point out in many different ways why your arguments were wrong.

At least you're willing to listen to reason from someone.

I'm willing to listen to anyone who speaks reason and will similarly listen to it.

 

[WizardStan]

Ok,

Please prove I made them up.

You are asking that we prove a negative. You have made a wild claim, we have said "no, you're wrong", and you're asking us to prove that you're wrong. That isn't how debate works outside of politics. In the real world of real debates you made the claim and you need to back up the claim with evidence. Only after you've presented your evidence can someone attempt to prove your wrong, by either demonstrating that the evidence you used is false or that you treated a step as a necessary conclusion where really it is not.So let's go back to square one. Here's something you said way back on page 12.

To be compliant then, the www.pandora.org web site would have to remove all of the emulated games shown in the animation/advertisment (not free even if the emulators are).

Using only what is described in the RYF criteria page, walk us through why you believe this is necessarily true.

 

[Grench]

And as I stated back then, you are making a complete apples and cog gear comparison.

No I'm not. You say you are against the RYF and the FSF because it restricts freedom of speech. Period. That is the crux of your argument. No additional lines to it, the fact that it restricts freedom at all is what you are repeatedly railing against.This is obviously not what you actually believe. As you pointed out, you are not against the restriction of freedoms when engaging in advertising. Sugar coat it however you want, they are restrictions. That is the overlap between the two points. You cannot be universally opposed to restricted freedoms in one case and then be ok with it in another and still be logically consistent. The answer is that you aren't. You are only opposed to it in this specific case because of other circumstances surrounding it.

You REALLY can't see the difference between:

1. A publisher restricting what they are willing to allow in their own magazine.

2. Contractually giving a 3rd party the rights to tell you what you can/not say on your own site, on your packaging, your own product.

You see those both as the same infringement on speech? Really?

How about this one? "Cooperation with FSF and GNU Public Relations The seller must use FSF approved terminology for the FSF's activities and work, in all statements and publications relating to the product. This includes product packaging, and manuals, web pages, marketing materials, and interviews about the product."

YES! Exactly! You're almost understanding even while completely missing the point, but we're getting there. That was pointed out several pages ago by someone who isn't you.

I stated it in this message: http://boards.openpandora.org/index.php/topic/14049-respects-your-freedom-certification/?p=277779Please cite your claimed earlier example.

When it was pointed out several people previously in favour of RYF, self included, began reconsidering. Note that what you have done here is a direct quote. You didn't try to hype it up and turn it into a bunch of FUD about having to dilute the repo or the necessary evils of not being able to say certain things, or any of the other things you said. In the future keep doing that, point out the specific things that you are against without resorting to hyperbole. The more wild the hypothetical situation you try to concoct the easier it will be to prove that you're wrong.

Please prove me wrong. Please provide a citation for where the FSF has made public and attributable statements that are to the contrary to what I have claimed based on the citations drawn from their own website.

This is exactly what I meant when I likened you to the conspiracy theorist: you were right, the RYF is not good for us, but not because of anything you actually said. Nothing you previously said about advertising closed source applications or how it would affect the repository was actually based in reality. You were right about the overall thing but it was others who brought up relevant passages that no one else had read. If you had done this from the start we wouldn't even be here. Instead you kept using the same debunked arguments over and over and over while myself, Moxie, and _wb_ were all trying to simply point out in many different ways why your arguments were wrong.

Again, please prove it. Please provide something other than, "I don't think they would do that." Or, "They would be willing to compromise on those points..." Please find actual, quotable statements. I did.

At least you're willing to listen to reason from someone.

I'm willing to listen to anyone who speaks reason and will similarly listen to it.

So long as you don't have to attribute reason to someone you traditionally disagree with.

 

[WizardStan]

I stated it in this message: http://boards.openpa...ation/?p=277779 Please cite your claimed earlier example.

You quoted the entire thing. While that obviously technically counts I'm pretty sure it goes against the intent.

You REALLY can't see the difference between:

Yes, I do see the difference. The difference is irrelevant because I'm not talking about the differences, I'm talking about what's the same. That is the crux of my argument. There is one thing in common between these two things: they both restrict freedom. You have stated that you are opposed to the RYF because it restricts freedom of speech. If you were universally opposed to freedom of speech then you would be as against advertising (which restricts speech) as you are against the RYF. Since you are not opposed to advertising it must therefore follow logically that you are not universally opposed to freedom of speech, you are only opposed to it in this specific case with the RYF. There are other factors involved that are other factors that you are opposed to that makes this instance of restriction a bad thing to be avoided at all costs where others are acceptable and sometimes encouraged.

 

[Grench]

Ok,

Please prove I made them up.

You are asking that we prove a negative. You have made a wild claim, we have said "no, you're wrong", and you're asking us to prove that you're wrong. That isn't how debate works outside of politics. In the real world of real debates you made the claim and you need to back up the claim with evidence. Only after you've presented your evidence can someone attempt to prove your wrong, by either demonstrating that the evidence you used is false or that you treated a step as a necessary conclusion where really it is not.
So let's go back to square one. Here's something you said way back on page 12.

To be compliant then, the www.pandora.org web site would have to remove all of the emulated games shown in the animation/advertisment (not free even if the emulators are).

Using only what is described in the RYF criteria page, walk us through why you believe this is necessarily true.

It was on Page 11, not 12 - or are you a mod and see the deleted posts included in your listing?


How about we start with my whole quote that you were parsing from.

To be compliant then, the www.pandora.org web site would have to remove all of the emulated games shown in the animation/advertisment (not free even if the emulators are). Any way you slice the 'restrictions on advertising' it is a restriction on freedom of speech.

I draw this conclusion from this statement: http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria


"100% Free Software


All the product software must be free software. The product software includes all software that the seller includes in the product, or provides with the product, or recommends for use in conjunction with the product, or steers users towards installation in the product."

The video top dead center on the product's home page showing a loop of playing non-free software on the device could easily be seen both as a recommendation and steering towards installation in the product.

 

[Løra (Lolla)]

I think this is one of those discussions that is going to go round and round until someone gives in. Perhaps it's time for everyone to let it go now?

 

[Grench]

I stated it in this message: http://boards.openpa...ation/?p=277779 Please cite your claimed earlier example.

You quoted the entire thing. While that obviously technically counts I'm pretty sure it goes against the intent.

You REALLY can't see the difference between:

Yes, I do see the difference. The difference is irrelevant because I'm not talking about the differences, I'm talking about what's the same. That is the crux of my argument. There is one thing in common between these two things: they both restrict freedom. You have stated that you are opposed to the RYF because it restricts freedom of speech. If you were universally opposed to freedom of speech then you would be as against advertising (which restricts speech) as you are against the RYF. Since you are not opposed to advertising it must therefore follow logically that you are not universally opposed to freedom of speech, you are only opposed to it in this specific case with the RYF. There are other factors involved that are other factors that you are opposed to that makes this instance of restriction a bad thing to be avoided at all costs where others are acceptable and sometimes encouraged.

So - since you do see that I was the source of finding that quote AND that you really do understand the differences in paid vs restrictive speech, you're just being argumentative and annoying because...???

 

[moxie]

As for posting private messages without the permission of the other party...That is a big nono in most any reasonable society, online or offline. Don't do that. I will have to consult with others, but that is usually considered a rather grave offense. And in that it does not matter whether you found it interesting or relevant or whatever - The idea of a private message is that, in contrast to the public message, the participants have just reason to assume that the conversation will stay out of the public eye unless something else is agreed upon. That is kinda the definition of "private". The decision to change that assumption is never on one side of the exchange.

Nope. If you make an unsolicited call to me or send me a message out of the blue without any pre-agreement, it is my right to record, display or otherwise use that in my own best judgment in how I use the information that you provided without my request.

There is no assumption of privacy on the internet. There is a civil expectation of being polite. I re-read and debated on whether to bring that information into the main discussion, saw no harm that could come from it and did so as I have no interest in carrying on a private conversation with him (or anyone) on this topic.

The same here - It is not your call to decide what is everybody elses reasoned expectations. The fact that there is legally no prohibition on making private conversations public, or that there exists no technical privacy (that is, there are no unbreakable technical barriers that guarantee your privacy) short of really strong encryption, doesn't mean that there is no expectation of such a privacy in a specific community. You are old enough on these boards to have seen several discussions of this, so this is no surprise to you. Do not devalue yourself by playing stupid.

Now, can we quit making this about me

Well, this is about you because you are making it about you. It is you who demand everybody else accept your inventions as the truth, and it is you who go into things like posting PMs. If you don't want this to be about you, start listening to the others.

 

[bsp]

such heated up discussions, oh my.

Tell you what: I offer to contact the FSF Europe next week and ask them about their stance on all of this. Their HQ just happens to be in my home town.

Would you please be so kind and compile a list of objections / questions ?  I'll pass it on to them. Then we'll know what's what.

 

[Grench]

I think this is one of those discussions that is going to go round and round until someone gives in. Perhaps it's time for everyone to let it go now?

Clearly you're new here.  That's OK.  We're probably just getting started.  Historically, we've had threads go on for 6+ months discussing and arguing over things as mundane and silly as whether a hypothetical new device should have microSD or full sized SD slots.

If this thread bothers you or you really don't care about whether or not we pursue the FSF's RYF certification, you're welcome to read other threads.  Isn't freedom great?

 

[Løra (Lolla)]

@Grench: Don't you dare patronise me. How about you show a bit of respect and decorum to other users and myself?, especially as I have been downright polite to you.


I think it's funny how you accused WizardStan of being both "argumentative and annoying", but you clearly aren't, right? Nor are you aggressive and patronising..hmm..sure. .


If you reply to this, I hope it will be with a better tone and more maturity than your last post.


And yes, freedom is great well done for noticing.