"Respects Your Freedom" certification?

[WizardStan]

recommends for use in conjunction with the product

It also says

Encumbered formats are those whose implementation is impeded by patents, interface copyrights or other restrictions. If the device supports encumbered formats, it must also support free formats that serve the same general purpose.

It even goes to talk specifically about MP3 playback being allowed despite the fact that MP3s are a restrictive format by patent and copyright. It does not take any stretch to see that ROMs can be considered an encumbered format. Maybe they wouldn't be, maybe the FSF would agree with you, but there is enough room for interpretation that what you are saying is not a logically necessary conclusion.

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...???

Because you made a statement of fact which is actually based on opinion which is wrong, but I still believe there's merit in what you are saying. If I could just get you to understand why what you said was wrong long ago I'm sure we'd be somewhere much better right now.Originally I gave up: you were wrong, I knew why you were wrong, it didn't matter any more that you were wrong; the discussion could continue without you. Then suddenly new information was brought to light and maybe you were right, just not about the things you thought you were. So I come back to this and try to prove the things you were saying wrong one more time in an attempt to move the discussion forward with this new information, but you won't drop the bad old arguments, you're just piling the new ones on top of the old and it's not benefiting anything.

 

[kasp]

I went to the site and it looks like it was designed just after the geocities era and it has a lot of broken links. Just how relevant is this organisation? Will getting FSF licensed actually do anything for sales, and do people even care about it?  

Like sure if the device fits the criteria and can get FSF licensed sure why not get it after all an open source console will surely come close. However I wouldn't change anything design wise or try and hit any of their targets if it  it takes a bit of effort to do. 

 

[comradekingu]

The whole FSF/RYF is so twisted up that -nobody- knows exactly what their requirements are, not even themselves apparently as those elements can apparently be altered to suit during the closed contract phase - which is apparently only done under NDA - which doesn't strike me as particularly in the spirit of FOSS.

We may not be 100% certain what everything is, but we don't make shit up, big difference. I've said before that you don't understand what a NDA is, still think you don't, prove to me where you found the NDA claim.

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.

Yes there has, added publicity for example. You don't understand economy of scale, nor marketing. Nor general usefullness to anyone.

1.) In the case of the ad, the OWNER of the property (magazine) is stating restrictions on what the requester (ED) can put in the magazine owner's publication. Ed is free to move to another publication if he doesn't like the given magazine's rules.

It has already been proven to you why this is a hypocrisy. We aren't discussing it to make up EDs mind about it, we are discussing if its something we want, and what it is, then sharing the result. If your arguments don't hold true for anything but FSF certifications i suggest you be honest instead.

2.) In the case of the FSF/RYF it is a 3rd party requiring payment from ED for telling ED what he can and can not put on and in ED's own box and what he can advertise about it and where he can do so. ED is contractually bound to surrender his freedoms to a 3rd party that -does not have his best interest in mind-. The FSF has it's own agenda front and center.

Which entirely doesn't answer why you cant share those ideals. You are making a straw-man argument in where everyone is as ignorant as you, don't.

*Certified Vegan - a marketing term only. You could grind up intestines and stuff them in a jar and mark it Vegan and get by with it in many countries.

Really, what countries are those? Protip, not Germany. You are either clueless or unable to follow the marketing restrictions that are already in place. The point wasnt about being vegan, but you managed to be wrong about that too.

*Halal and Kosher - Religious designations gained by paying money to a religious representative to bless the processing and/or result of the food and in many cases the methodology for slaughter or harvest. From 50,000 feet up, ignoring the religious aspect it looks more like taxation or a protection racket.

Wrong, again. You can use those terms without paying anything. Get down from your high horse, you actually have to argue your case, nor make ding für mich-statements.

*Safety gear - In the US that usually means a governmental agency (ANSI, DOT, etc...) that creates the standards that the manufacturer claims the product can meet. The manufacturer doesn't actually pay the agency for the mark, but instead makes a claim of the individual piece of equipment as meeting the given requirement. If the product fails to meet those standards, then the manufacturer could be found civilly and criminally liable for damages resulting. Occasionally such agencies will spot check to make the illusion of enforcement.


*Hard Hat - There ARE hard hats produced without ANSI certification. They are often called, 'Bump caps'.

http://www.envirosafetyproducts.com/resources/hardhat.php

http://www.envirosafetyproducts.com/bump-caps-head-protection-bump-cap.html


Now that I have answered your questions, let me ask one?

Nope, you haven't, he asked how many you think you would sell. If you are risking your safety on american false advertising, you aren't wearing a hardhat. Nor are you actually allowed to wear it in a place where serious work occurs. Ie, one that requires certified hard hats. Also, the point wasn't hard-hats, and you made it into bump caps, the levels of wrong...

Lets spoon it, people don't trust that the doctor they are going to is a doctor just because the sign on the door says so. It is a protected title, and you shift trust to the ones mandating that license.

1.) The RYF is a certification that the FSF grants members. They are not and will never be separable. From a programming perspective, the RYF is a function of the FSF. You don't get one without the other.

You don't have to be a member. And fsf-approved distro on its own is by no means what a RYF valid distro constitutes. actually it doesn't constitute any.

RYF is inseparable from FSF as RYF is a certification given BY the FSF.

is this where you think you can make up claims based on their other certifications?

You consider it to be trivial that ED would have to send his packaging, advertising, customer communications and any speech, verbal or written he plans to give in a public forum from the date of signing onward to the FSF for RYF vetting? Trivial? What planet is giving up self determination and freedom of speech trivial on?

Where did you find pre-screening or vetting?

the FSF is likely to have issues with the promotion of non-free software that is ranked highly in the repository - meaning that it gains favored placement over non-free alternatives. The FSF is the authority for RYF.

That is a factual function based on user popularity, it does not in any way give it merit or an unfair advantage.

They ARE INSEPARABLE. The RYF is a certification from the FSF. The device could no more ship with Ubuntu and RYF certification than it could with MS Windows.

Wrong, except for the spy-ware concern, there is no problem. Also, nobody but you mentioned shipping ubuntu. However the claim that _you_ made, factually wrong and spurious.

NOBODY has demonstrated ANY cases where my claims to the given requirements for FSF certification resulting in sacrificing freedom of speech and self determination were wrong.

Wrong about being wrong about being wrong. Your claims were made up, if you argue those reasons you change the rule of the game. That is what you did when you made them up. I'm not about to change the rules of a discussion just because you did.

"Companies awarded RYF certification for a given product, must not distribute any product-related materials with endorsements or badges to proprietary software, such as "Works with Windows" or "Made for Mac" badges, because these would give an appearance of legitimacy to those proprietary packages, and may make users think the product requires them. However, we don't object to clear factual statements informing the user that the product also works with specific proprietary operating systems."

I simply have a very small tolerance for self inflicted bureaucratic headaches.

REEEEEEAD. How about exceptions for things to do with the issues you raise, these are not limited to copyright, patent law and marketing law sure, if you disregard those, you are just a troll, and you even fail to understand or discredit those on a general basis too.

Why on earth would anyone volunteer to pay to join a BS organization that straps them with rules they don't need?

Classic ad populace slanderous and ignorant troll argument. FUD

The RYF badge comes with a license that mandates requirements, like any other, a license without them can only manifest itself in a marking like " a label that means nothing" which is non restrictive.

No, your label that you claim means nothing is based on the manufacturer's faith and credit. If ED states on the box that it can be run as a completely FOSS machine, I'd believe him. I don't need him to join a club and get their sticker to put on his box to believe him. Do you? Really?

You must be sure of your arguments to make them into assertions. You are unable to read context, or you don't understand why the relation I mentioned is important. I didn't say labels mean nothing, i said "without" 3rd party labels are based on someone else's credibility, obviously.

You hope a military branch picks up what? The Pandora Successor? Sure - that would be great. More units sold, though I would understand if ED wants to keep things inside numbers he can manage.

That is a luxury problem. You fail to understand economy of scale and freedom of choice.

How about the publicity we could get by making a 100% FOSS capable device and telling the FSF they can go sit on their RYF certificate and spin? Then we could have a FOSS capable device and be able to ship it with both FOSS and non-FOSS alternatives - giving the users choice.

We dont want to ship it with non-foss alternatives, nor can we, wake up. It was even disproved for your leisure. I proposed both RYF _and_ showing FSF what is what while you were busy counting to potato and spreading FUD. You are so out of touch you have more than once argued my points in supposedly disagreeing with the meaning.

More openness is a self for-filling and enhancing security fix. X in userspace, more eyeballs on the rest. So what if its just 10 sales, maybe it brings along with a really heavy certification. (has anyone noticed how asus/gigabyte sell milspec component motherboards to consumers? Mainly overclockers, but there are lots of people in the world with 300m water resistant watches...) You get many gamers with one world record set by an overclocker!

You clearly have 'open and free' confused with 'freedom'. FOSS is open and free. Restricting to only being able to install, talk about and advertise FOSS is not freedom.

I dont, and you are quoting something not relevant to your claim. Again, nobody has ever mentioned a restriction on what you can install and talk about, because that was never up for discussion. Stop spreading FUD

I'm sure the people at the FSF are fine people who obey all laws and do their best to earn their paychecks. However, I see the product they're selling (FSF membership and RYF certification) to be entirely without merit and their methodologies for restrictions and enforcement to be barbaric. Your opinion can of course be your own.

Does anyone care what you think when you don't give reasons? Im glad you now seem to have understood non-profit organisations. Who they are, and what you think of this personally, is not a reason to discredit the product. How about you state with non made up reasons why its barbaric?

And they are willing to put the money on the table if the hardware is right, which means you can command and defend a higher price in being different.

Mmm - I think you're in a fantasy world with that one. The FSF isn't bringing money to the project - they're taking money AWAY from the project. The best 'different' that the device could ever hope for is to be 100% free of restrictions - including those that the FSF would place on it for RYF certification.

Why why why. I already said the 120$ could be raised elsewhere. We aren't hiring you as our marketing department, nor are you changing language, to anyone else RYF means free of restrictions.

TL;DR we are small and vocal, and should hone that, to make our strengths stronger we reach more people, and vice versa.

Yes. We're stronger when we do not exclude others, when we are inclusive and allow voices to be heard from all aspects of the world. [troll]The FSF requirements for RYF certification violates that basic principle by requiring restriction to one set of software, one type of speech, one philosophy. That isn't freedom - that is totalitarianism.[/troll]

Understand that freedom of choice for oneself is paramount to all others. Before you went of on a troll argument, who is excluded, you?

TL;DR People are trying to help you, in addition to having to be taught basic discussion etiquette, you capable of posting pm's without asking, classic. You answer none of the questions directed towards you, instead simply ignoring them, at will. You even lie about being dis-proven. You use words you dont know the meaning of, and victimize yourself. You spread FUD.

You shot the messenger when moxie pointed out and explained you dont disclose PMs, then tried to change the rules of privacy because this is the internet. HELLO?

 

[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?

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?

@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.

No, your first post was to chastise me for breaking etiquette - which I had already acknowledged and stated my reasons for doing so.

Then you enter into a heated discussion with the equivalent of, "Can't we all just get along?"

My reply was to the effect of, you're welcome here, but if you're uncomfortable, you're welcome to move along.  We'll be at this for a while.

Now the accusation of patronizing you.  OK.  Gloves off then.

Could you please either add something to the topic of conversation from one side or the other - or create your own side - or butt out?

What you are doing right now is, intentional or not, simple trolling as it has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[comradekingu]

If you cant follow basic rules of argumentation or etiquette, the topic becomes you. I made a long post about you, which was largely irrelevant to the discussion, because your contribution to it, is negative.

We tried helping you, because we liked this discussion. Instead you make it about yourself, or try to make it about someone else. Lolla is right in pointing out that you don't disclose PMs. So am I, so is Moxie. Patronizing Lolla for doing so, not good. You don't acknowledge doing something, thats pointless, we all know you did it, in this thread. What you do is apologize... She is right, you are wrong, you could have left it there, or not make the mistake in the first place, now please read my post and the others.

Read, and understand, take it as rhetorical questioning if you don't want to return to this thread, you are digging a deeper hole every time.

 

[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, lets put this on the scoreboard then.  Grench 2, WizardStan 0.

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.

Grench gets a point.  3 to 0.

You stated you had been proving me wrong over and over.  I asked you to prove it.  I did.  3 times.

You have stated that you were working so hard because you wanted force me to admit I was wrong.  

You have failed.  You were wrong.  Will you admit it?

 

[Løra (Lolla)]

@Grench: It has to do with you being rude and aggressive in a discussion of a topic that I happen to find interesting.


Secondly, if you don't want to be "chastised" for some of the things you do, i.e posting messages that were sent to you PRIVATELY, then don't do it in the first place. However, I was most polite about the matter, despite the fact I actually found it a low thing to do.


As for being patronising towards me: you were, muchly so, and it was highly disrespectful. I haven't once been rude to you and would expect the same level of treatment back. That's pretty much just common courtesy and decency, to be honest. But you seem incapable of such things.


Lastly, you want me to pick a side? Fine. Put it this way: it's not on the side you're on.

 

[comradekingu]

Grench, how about you actually stop attributing points to yourself and get on our level, your point is already answered on page 11... and again here

If its down to an approximation of who makes the most sense, the FSF wins over you by miles, ill decide to go with giving them the benefit of the doubt every time.

Roms is one of the few instances where actually copying your own software and enjoying them is legal, its not like you can compare that to FSFs claim on general software just because it serves your agenda.

But lets ask them, and not you.

 

[Grench]

I went to the site and it looks like it was designed just after the geocities era and it has a lot of broken links. Just how relevant is this organisation? Will getting FSF licensed actually do anything for sales, and do people even care about it?  

Like sure if the device fits the criteria and can get FSF licensed sure why not get it after all an open source console will surely come close. However I wouldn't change anything design wise or try and hit any of their targets if it  it takes a bit of effort to do. 

Good luck with that.  Main questions are:

1.  Will they even talk to you.

2.  Do they require an NDA with the device manufacturer before contract negotiations begin?  Can you get and have permission to openly publish said NDA?

3.  Can you have a copy of and permission to publish the executed form of their three most recent FSF membership contracts - with the company names redacted if needed.

4.  How is the 'bounty program' funded?  Is the funding obligations of the bounty program in the contracts?

5.  The rules state that no non-FOSS software can not ship on the device.  Does this include alternate OS partitions containing non-FOSS software on a dual boot system?  Would said dual boot (FOSS/Non-Foss) be able to get certification?

6.  Can non-FOSS drivers and an installer for a non-free OS be included for the end client's convenience should the end user desire to purchase the OS and install it themselves and still get certification?

7.  Is it necessary for all marketing materials, packaging and statements made by the member organization referencing the certified devicee need to be vetted back through the FSF before publication?  

8.  Public speeking - does the FSF require pre-approval of prepared statements about the certified device?

9.  What's with the Gnu/Linux thing - isn't that simply petty frivolity?

 

[WizardStan]

You stated you had been proving me wrong over and over.  I asked you to prove it.  I did.  3 times.

What are you even talking about? This isn't a game, there are no scores. Are you really that immature? I'm sorry, I really just... can't here. I thought that maybe there might be some reasoning with you but if this is how you see it then I'm sorry I ever thought that. You are literally unreasonable.

 

[comradekingu]

Good luck with that.  Main questions are:

1.  Yes they will talk to us, the FSF is a very open grassroot org, and they answer emails.

2.  We will only assume no here since it makes no sense, and they dont state it. I dont think they are trying to trick anyone, and you actually have to sign a waiver on NDA, it doesnt magically happen. Non disclosure is implied on all correspondence that isn't public.

Can you get and have permission to openly publish said NDA?

I don't even...

3.  Why would you want that, does it prove anything to you? They would have to ask the other party. It does what it says on the string, there is no puppet master behind the scenes. And if there was, its our contract with the FSF that will state that, not someone elses.

4.  Probably, could be its funded with the 120 dollar, who knows. If your money isn't where your mouth is, why open it?

5.  Accordingly yes, and no. What you need to be asking yourself is why we cant ship a non-free OS to begin with, if you cant do it then it isn't a valid concern!

6.  Yes, you just cant include it with the device. You can for example put a page on the repo with links to the drivers.

7. No, they do not have the capacity to search through it all, instead leaving it down to others, see info and bounty program.

8.  No

9.  No, the FSF is defending free software, that gives freedoms that aren't implied by open source, the certification is to bring light to this, they don't want to give it to people who undermine their goals. They are in their right to do so, and we are in our right to walk away from it.

If i need to clarify for you. FSF started FOSS, they have the biggest license GPL, they do the job of protecting it legally, and they aren't about to torpedo their partners over RYF certification. Recently they raised lots of money for an android distro we can actually use.

 

[Grench]

Are you really THAT bored? Sheesh - what a monster. Trying to reply to it I get, "You have exceeded the allowable quoted blocks of text." Please number your questions or something so we don't have to deal with 15 pages of embedded quotes? I'm going to have to break the response into a code block.

Next time keep your questions down to 5 or less OK? Or at least come up with 5 NEW ones? This is mostly pre-hashed stuff that I proved out on pages ago using FSF/RYF published docs.

[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
The whole FSF/RYF is so twisted up that -nobody- knows exactly what their requirements are, not even themselves apparently as those elements can apparently be altered to suit during the closed contract phase - which is apparently only done under NDA - which doesn't strike me as particularly in the spirit of FOSS.
[/quote]
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
We may not be 100% certain what everything is, but we don't make shit up, big difference. I've said before that you don't understand what a NDA is, still think you don't, prove to me where you found the NDA claim.
[/quote] Non-disclosure agreement. Normally a light-load contract that two parties use to ensure that the contents of the conversation that follows will be held as confidential. Generally done during the sales process post first visit as the companies start talking specifics. Where this came up was that I had stated I would be shocked if they didn't require an NDA prior to even opening discussions around their contractual license terms. I can not prove this negative - but I would still be shocked if they weren't using an NDA before negotiating the contract.
 
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
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.[/quote]
Yes there has, added publicity for example. You don't understand economy of scale, nor marketing. Nor general usefullness to anyone.[/quote]
Please cut the insults. There is no real economy of scale to be gained from working through the FSF. The vast majority of what they bring in goes out as salaries. There is no major marketing budget at the FSF to help promote the devices with the certification. There is no usefulness to their involvement. Plenty to give up, but nothing really to gain.
 
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
1.) In the case of the ad, the OWNER of the property (magazine) is stating restrictions on what the requester (ED) can put in the magazine owner's publication. Ed is free to move to another publication if he doesn't like the given magazine's rules.
[/quote]
It has already been proven to you why this is a hypocrisy. We aren't discussing it to make up EDs mind about it, we are discussing if its something [i]we[/i] want, and what it is, then sharing the result. If your arguments don't hold true for anything but FSF certifications i suggest you be honest instead.[/quote]

Apples and monkey wrenches.

It is not hypocrisy. It is a basic nature of ownership.

If you own the medium to be used in speech, you get to charge for it. Sell add space, sell air time, rent your bull horn. Those are methods of expression via purchase - nothing wrong. Nobody is 'giving up' freedom of speech unless they simply want to be a vulgar jack-ass and put completely inappropriate material outside of what the publication would consider decent. Yes, that could be a restriction of free speech - but it is voluntary and allows the purchaser the option of buying space elsewhere OR making their own magazine.

ED owns his own medium - this site, the box that the device would package in. He has self determination and can say whatever he wants. If he gets involved with the FSF - they would be dictating the packaging on ED's box, what can be said in marketing messages about ED's box, the contents of the device and who could say what about the FSF. ED signs a contract, and suddenly someone else is in charge of his speech and what he can say where, how, to whom, and what he can or can not include in a device that he may or may not make.

There is a HUGE difference in the two scenarios.
 
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
2.) In the case of the FSF/RYF it is a 3rd party requiring payment from ED for telling ED what he can and can not put on and in ED's own box and what he can advertise about it and where he can do so. ED is contractually bound to surrender his freedoms to a 3rd party that -does not have his best interest in mind-. The FSF has it's own agenda front and center.
[/quote]
Which entirely doesn't answer why you cant share those ideals. You are making a straw-man argument in where everyone is as ignorant as you, don't.[/quote]
You want me to "share those ideals"? Have you READ their manifesto that is the guidelines for RYF certification?
Should I start keeping tally on all of the name calling? {Ignorant}
 
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
*Certified Vegan - a marketing term only. You could grind up intestines and stuff them in a jar and mark it Vegan and get by with it in many countries.
[/quote]
Really, what countries are those? Protip, [i]not [/i]Germany. You are either clueless or unable to follow the marketing restr
ictions that are already in place. The point wasnt about being vegan, but you managed to be wrong about that too.[/quote]
Yes, I'm actually wrong on, "Certified Vegan." It turns out that there is a standards organization that uses that label as a trademark so can't use that. You'd just have to label the jar, Vegan Cow Intestines. Which is true - as the cows were vegetarians.
[/quote]


 
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
*Halal and Kosher - Religious designations gained by paying money to a religious representative to bless the processing and/or result of the food and in many cases the methodology for slaughter or harvest. From 50,000 feet up, ignoring the religious aspect it looks more like taxation or a protection racket.
[/quote]
Wrong, again. You can use those terms without paying anything. Get down from your high horse, you actually have to argue your case, nor make ding für mich-statements.
[/quote]
Nope. You're wrong - at least for 'certifications'.
Kosher: [url=http://www.star-k.org/ind-howtobecome-choose.htm#fees]http://www.star-k.org/ind-howtobecome-choose.htm#fees[/url]
Halal: [url=http://www.ushalalcertification.com/application.html]http://www.ushalalcertification.com/application.html[/url] (Note fees 6 boxes down.)

You were wrong. Please exit through the door to your left. Thank you.
 
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
*Safety gear - In the US that usually means a governmental agency (ANSI, DOT, etc...) that creates the standards that the manufacturer claims the product can meet. The manufacturer doesn't actually pay the agency for the mark, but instead makes a claim of the individual piece of equipment as meeting the given requirement. If the product fails to meet those standards, then the manufacturer could be found civilly and criminally liable for damages resulting. Occasionally such agencies will spot check to make the illusion of enforcement.
*Hard Hat - There ARE hard hats produced without ANSI certification. They are often called, 'Bump caps'.
[url=http://www.envirosafetyproducts.com/resources/hardhat.php]http://www.envirosafetyproducts.com/resources/hardhat.php[/url]
[url=http://www.envirosafetyproducts.com/bump-caps-head-protection-bump-cap.html]http://www.envirosafetyproducts.com/bump-caps-head-protection-bump-cap.html[/url]

Now that I have answered your questions, let me ask one?
[/quote]
Nope, you haven't, he asked how many you think you would [i]sell[/i]. If you are risking your safety on american false advertising, you aren't wearing a hardhat. Nor are you actually allowed to wear it in a place where serious work occurs. Ie, one that requires certified hard hats. Also, the point wasn't hard-hats, and you made it into bump caps, the levels of wrong...
[/quote]
 YES, a GOVERMENT agency ANSI (American National Standards Institute) makes standards for a big pile of industrial items, hard hats included. I've worn several. Bump caps have their place too - generally in commercial labs for technicians.
And again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the actual argument of whether or not the FSF's RYF should be pursued or if it's just a gigantic waste of time and freedom.
 
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
Lets spoon it, people don't trust that the doctor they are going to is a doctor just because the sign on the door says so. It is a protected title, and you shift trust to the ones mandating that license.
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
1.) The RYF is a certification that the FSF grants members. They are not and will never be separable. From a programming perspective, the RYF is a function of the FSF. You don't get one without the other.
[/quote]
You don't have to be a member. And fsf-approved distro on its own is by no means what a RYF valid distro constitutes. actually it doesn't constitute any.
 
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
RYF is inseparable from FSF as RYF is a certification given BY the FSF.
[/quote]

is this where you think you can make up claims based on their other certifications?
[/quote]
ALL claims that I have made were based on the FSF's requirements for an RYF device as listed on their website and linked to via their approved software license link. Where, exactly are you getting YOUR information from please?
 
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
You consider it to be trivial that ED would have to send his packaging, advertising, customer communications and any speech, verbal or written he plans to give in a public forum from the date of signing onward to the FSF for RYF vetting? Trivial? What planet is giving up self determination and freedom of speech trivial on?
[/quote]
Where did you find pre-screening or vetting?
[/quote]

[url=http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria]http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria[/url]
"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."

How else do you get said approval without pre-screening and vetting?


[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
the FSF is likely to have issues with the promotion of non-free software that is ranked highly in the repository - meaning that it gains favored placement over non-free alternatives. The FSF is the authority for RYF.
[/quote]
That is a factual function based on user popularity, it does not in any way give it merit or an unfair advantage.
[/quote]
And what makes you think that there is an exception for that?
"Companies awarded RYF certification for a given product, must not distribute any product-related materials with endorsements or badges to proprietary software"

[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
They ARE INSEPARABLE. The RYF is a certification from the FSF. The device could no more ship with Ubuntu and RYF certification than it could with MS Windows.
[/quote]
Wrong, except for the spy-ware concern, there is no problem. Also, nobody but you mentioned shipping ubuntu. However the claim that _you_ made, factually wrong and spurious.[/quote]
What OS is acceptable to them?  Can you figure this web out?  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
I couldn't find Debian or Ubuntu listed in their acceptable software LINKED FROM THE RYF pages.

[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
NOBODY has demonstrated ANY cases where my claims to the given requirements for FSF certification resulting in sacrificing freedom of speech and self determination were wrong.
[/quote]

Wrong about being wrong about being wrong. Your claims were [i]made up[/i], if you argue those reasons you change the rule of the game. That is what you did when you made them up. I'm not about to change the rules of a discussion just because you did.[/quote]
Can someone decipher what he's on about there?  

[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
"Companies awarded RYF certification for a given product, must not distribute any product-related materials with endorsements or badges to proprietary software, such as "Works with Windows" or "Made for Mac" badges, because these would give an appearance of legitimacy to those proprietary packages, and may make users think the product requires them. [b]However, we don't object to clear factual statements informing the user that the product also works with specific proprietary operating systems."[/b][color=#ff0000] [/color]
 
[color=#ff0000]I simply have a very small tolerance for self inflicted bureaucratic headaches.[/color]
[/quote]

REEEEEEAD. How about exceptions for things to do with the issues you raise, these are not limited to copyright, patent law and marketing law sure, if you disregard those, you are just a troll, and you even fail to understand or discredit those on a general basis too.[/quote]
Exceptions?  Exactly what exceptions granted by who representing the FSF are you referring to?
 
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
Why on earth would anyone volunteer to pay to join a BS organization that straps them with rules they don't need?
[/quote]
Classic ad populace slanderous and ignorant troll [s]argument[/s]. FUD
[/quote]
Do you have any actual information to add or did you just want to call me a troll again?
 
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236275"]
The RYF badge comes with a license that mandates requirements, like any other, a license without them can only manifest itself in a marking like " a label that means [i]nothing[/i]" which is non restrictive.
[/quote]
No, your label that you claim means [i]nothing[/i] is based on the manufacturer's faith and credit. If ED states on the box that it can be run as a completely FOSS machine, I'd believe him. I don't need him to join a club and get their sticker to put on his box to believe him. Do you? Really?
[/quote]

You must be sure of your arguments to make them into assertions. You are unable to read context, or you don't understand why the relation I mentioned is important. I didn't say labels mean nothing, i said "without" [i]3rd party labels are based on someone else's credibility, obviously.[/i][/quote]
So do you agree that if ED made a claim on the box that it would be 'good enough'?  I have a whole lot more faith in him than some random 'standards organization'.  Don't you?  That Stamp from the FSF costs way more than it 'means'.
 
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
You hope a military branch picks up what? The Pandora Successor? Sure - that would be great. More units sold, though I would understand if ED wants to keep things inside numbers he can manage.
[/quote]

That is a luxury problem. You fail to understand economy of scale and freedom of choice.[/quote]
Are you just making random statements to insult me at this point?
 
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
How about the publicity we could get by making a 100% FOSS capable device and telling the FSF they can go sit on their RYF certificate and spin? Then we could have a FOSS capable device and be able to ship it with both FOSS and non-FOSS alternatives - giving the users choice.
[/quote]

We dont want to ship it with non-foss alternatives, nor can we, [i]wake up[/i].[/quote] 
Sure we can.  If we don't sign up with the FSF, we can do anything we damn well please.

[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]It was even disproved for your leisure. I proposed both RYF _and_ showing FSF what is what while you were busy counting to potato and spreading FUD. You are so out of touch you have more than once argued my points in supposedly disagreeing with the meaning.[/quote]
More accusations, nothing to back them up.  And apparently I'm now a potato picking Troll.  Joy.  A new vocation.
 
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236275"]
More openness is a self for-filling and enhancing security fix. X in userspace, more eyeballs on the rest. So what if its just 10 sales, maybe it brings along with a really heavy certification. (has anyone noticed how asus/gigabyte sell milspec component motherboards to consumers? Mainly overclockers, but there are lots of people in the world with 300m water resistant watches...) You get many gamers with one world record set by an overclocker!
[/quote]
You clearly have 'open and free' confused with 'freedom'. FOSS is open and free. Restricting to only being able to install, talk about and advertise FOSS is not freedom.
[/quote]

I dont, and you are quoting something not relevant to your claim. Again, nobody has ever mentioned a restriction on what you can install and talk about, because that was never up for discussion. Stop spreading FUD[/quote]
The point of discussion is whether or not to apply for FSF's RYF certification.  Their requirements for that circulation are based on restricting what you can install, what you can talk about, etc...  That IS the discussion.
 
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
I'm sure the people at the FSF are fine people who obey all laws and do their best to earn their paychecks. However, I see the product they're selling (FSF membership and RYF certification) to be entirely without merit and their methodologies for restrictions and enforcement to be barbaric. Your opinion can of course be your own.
[/quote]

Does anyone care what you think when you don't give reasons? Im glad you now seem to have understood non-profit organisations. Who they are, and what you think of this personally, is not a reason to discredit the product. How about you state with non made up reasons why its barbaric?[/quote]
The conditions to get their product (certification) require freedom of speech sacrifices.
The method of enforcement of paying people cash to find where certified companies are out of compliance is barbaric in that it uses snitches and paid informants instead of the company actually doing their own leg work.
 
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236275"]
And they are willing to put the money on the table if the hardware is right, which means you can command and defend a higher price in being different.
[/quote]
Mmm - I think you're in a fantasy world with that one. The FSF isn't bringing money to the project - they're taking money AWAY from the project. The best 'different' that the device could ever hope for is to be 100% free of restrictions - including those that the FSF would place on it for RYF certification.
[/quote]

Why why why. I already said the 120$ could be raised elsewhere. We aren't hiring you as our marketing department, nor are you changing language, to anyone else RYF means free of restrictions.[/quote]
You have got to be joking.  Have you bothered to read: http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria
It is hardly anything BUT restrictions.
 
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]
[quote="Grench, post: 1236283"]
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236275"]
TL;DR we are small and vocal, and should hone that, to make our strengths stronger we reach more people, and vice versa.
[/quote]
Yes. We're stronger when we do not exclude others, when we are inclusive and allow voices to be heard from all aspects of the world. [troll]The FSF requirements for RYF certification violates that basic principle by requiring restriction to one set of software, one type of speech, one philosophy. That isn't freedom - that is totalitarianism.[/troll]
[/quote]
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]Understand that freedom of choice for oneself is paramount to all others. Before you went of on a troll argument, who is excluded, you?[/quote]
Accepting the FSF's certification means giving up all freedom of choice around expanding the install or package contents or even the box to include or show anything that the FSF does not agree to.
 
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]TL;DR People are trying to help you, in addition to having to be taught basic discussion etiquette, you capable of posting pm's without asking, classic. You answer none of the questions directed towards you, instead simply ignoring them, at will. You even lie about being dis-proven.[/quote]
It's a classic political organization tactic to call something exactly what it isn't - and to state someone doesn't answer questions when they do - to state that they prove nothing when they actually do. This statement of yours is utter crap.  I answered every single one of your questions, many of them repeatedly.  I have cited sources showing you 100% wrong on many of your above statements.  I have even admitted to being wrong on one (Certified Vegan is apparently a trademark).
 
[quote="comradekingu, post: 1236303"]You shot the messenger when moxie pointed out and explained you dont disclose PMs, then tried to change the rules of privacy because this is the internet. HELLO?[/quote]

Please prove any damages that I caused you by bringing yet another one of your senseless rambling accusations to the light of day.  Yes, I published your PM on purpose.  It was your attempt to rope me into multiple conversations on multiple threads.  I'm not going to allow you to play it that way.  Keep this subject in the open where people can see how you have absolutely no information to back your statements.  You're making broad accusations, name calling and being quite insulting in your continued attack.

Please show me where you have supplied any verifiable and valid points - with proper citations to back them up.

Thank you. 

 

[Exophase]

oh god burn it with fire D:

(in case he fixes it by the time someone reads this last post is currently a horrible mess of like a bazillion broken quotes and stuff)

 

[Grench]

You stated you had been proving me wrong over and over.  I asked you to prove it.  I did.  3 times.

What are you even talking about? This isn't a game, there are no scores. Are you really that immature? I'm sorry, I really just... can't here. I thought that maybe there might be some reasoning with you but if this is how you see it then I'm sorry I ever thought that. You are literally unreasonable.

You stated REPEATEDLY how you were out to TEACH ME how WRONG I was. How I should acknowledge my failure.

I asked for examples of what you considered those WRONG points to be.

You provided your examples. I proved YOU wrong.

Now we see how you handle your failure. So, you're going to take your ball and go home then? OK.

 

[Grench]

oh god burn it with fire D:

(in case he fixes it by the time someone reads this last post is currently a horrible mess of like a bazillion broken quotes and stuff)

I agree. comradekingu sent me a post with a 2 pages of requested responses in one. The system simply can't handle it so I dumped it in a code window. It's a mess - and to hell with fixing it.

 

[comradekingu]

Is there any form of etiquette that you dont break...? Im busy now, will read it later

Edit: HAHAHAHA

You are trying to find debian and ubuntu in the list of licenses, are you even?

• What OS is acceptable to them? Can you figure this web out? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
  
• I couldn't find Debian or Ubuntu listed in their acceptable software LINKED FROM THE RYF pages.

>can you figure this web out

>2013

You call FSF:

some random 'standards organization'

 

[kasp]

Well my main question was about how relevant the organisation is. The website looks bad and has broken links plus I have never even heard of them before.

Would getting the FSF badge actually do anything productive?  Do people actually care about that badge and especially with a handheld gaming device?

 

[_wb_]

Well my main question was about how relevant the organisation is. The website looks bad and has broken links plus I have never even heard of them before.

Quite relevant, I'd say. It is certainly the number one authority on software freedom. It is the organisation that started the whole FOSS movement, invented the GPL license and is the main organisation to enforce it, started the GNU project 30 years ago, and so on.

It is a bit sad in my opinion that so few people have heard about the FSF or the GNU project, even while they're using their software in one way or another.

Would getting the FSF badge actually do anything productive?  Do people actually care about that badge and especially with a handheld gaming device?

Yes, some people actually care about this and it would spark their interest in the device. I have no idea how many people that would be, but I'm pretty sure that many of them are potential devs.

 

[kasp]

Well my main question was about how relevant the organisation is. The website looks bad and has broken links plus I have never even heard of them before.

Quite relevant, I'd say. It is certainly the number one authority on software freedom. It is the organisation that started the whole FOSS movement, invented the GPL license and is the main organisation to enforce it, started the GNU project 30 years ago, and so on.

It is a bit sad in my opinion that so few people have heard about the FSF or the GNU project, even while they're using their software in one way or another.

Would getting the FSF badge actually do anything productive?  Do people actually care about that badge and especially with a handheld gaming device?

Yes, some people actually care about this and it would spark their interest in the device. I have no idea how many people that would be, but I'm pretty sure that many of them are potential devs.

I know about the GNU project but I never heard of the FSF before.  It's strange because I work with linux systems and deal with a fair bit of open source software yet I have never seen the badge or heard of them before.

I honestly think the people who care about that would only care that the system is open. Whether or not it had a FSF badge wouldn't really make that much difference.  

 

[comradekingu]

In terms of how open it actually is, the certification makes a lot of sense. And its nice and educative for newcomers. You might have heard about RMS, richard stallman. We could get a quote from him. He is a walking publicity stunt, for good and bad. For over 30 years now. As a sidenote you may not at all have heard about Bruce Perens, the OSI equivalent.

The badge isn't that known yet, but its always nice to be early

• Use of the FSF name and the Respects Your Freedom certification program in your press releases and advertising, including quotes from FSF executives
  
• Publication of a press release through the FSF's own channels, either jointly with your own or separately
  

Its like getting https://www.schneier.com/ to talk nicely about your security or getting praise by linus for your patches.