"Respects Your Freedom" certification?

[sebt3]

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've been sugesting this last week without any chance...
Any way this is all moot if the SOC ED choose cannot have floss drivers because he cant source anything else (which is rather highly probable...)

I think theses guys just like having arguments for fun/hate (cant choose)...

 

[WizardStan]

You provided your examples. I proved YOU wrong

You debate like a child and then award yourself points. Seriously, this was interesting, then frustrating, then amusing, but now your antics are just sad. I'm sure we'll cross paths in another debate in the future and when that time comes I'll give you another chance to prove that you understand how grown-ups engage in cordial discussion but right now you are too emotionally charged to comprehend.

 

[Grench]

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.

A dozen or so people. Maybe half of them claiming to be devs. All living on a couch in either mother's basement or an old friend's TV room. Most of whom will work for food.

 

[Grench]

You provided your examples. I proved YOU wrong

You debate like a child and then award yourself points. Seriously, this was interesting, then frustrating, then amusing, but now your antics are just sad. I'm sure we'll cross paths in another debate in the future and when that time comes I'll give you another chance to prove that you understand how grown-ups engage in cordial discussion but right now you are too emotionally charged to comprehend.

You keep saying how wrong I was. I asked you for examples. I proved your examples were all false - including where you claimed that someone else brought up the point you liked. Yet you're still being an ass. Good luck to you in that.

I supported my points with direct quotes. You provided nothing but continue dancing around claiming I was wrong.

Now you continue to insult me. Nifty.

 

[_wb_]

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.

A dozen or so people. Maybe half of them claiming to be devs. All living on a couch in either mother's basement or an old friend's TV room. Most of whom will work for food.

Right, good to know the numbers, thanks. I happen to be one of those half a dozen people. However, contrary to your claim, I live in a nice house in Brussels, have a wife and two lovely daughters. I have a PhD in computer science and my wage is accordingly. I will not work for food.

 

[moxie]

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.

A dozen or so people. Maybe half of them claiming to be devs. All living on a couch in either mother's basement or an old friend's TV room. Most of whom will work for food.

This is way, way past what is respectful discussion. Stop it. Now.

If you have anything factual to add, then please do. There will be no more insults or made-up stuff, though. And I do believe you are old enough to actually realize the difference.

And no, you have not "disproven" WizardStans points. In the same vein as above, I do believe that you actually realize this, but keep shouting the same things over and over in some vain attempt to hide your initial mistakes. Stop it - It isn't working. You're making up ludicrous scenarious, based on highly tendentious interpretations of very particular quotes from FSF taken out of context, whilst totally mixing up organisation with certification and different certifications with each other, in order to try to support your own broken argument.

It isn't working. Everybody in this thread can see that you're grinding another axe here. And it is of course up to you if you want to express your opinions on the FSF and free software movement in general, but do start your own thread to do that. Highjacking otherwise useful threads to express your inner feelings like this in page after page is not the thing to do.

Just to make it clear: I am, like WizardStan, quite critical of the FSF in general and not at all keen on an eventual P2 to be RYF-certified. This, however, can be argued correctly, not by FUD, insults and emotional outbursts.

 

[Wally]

Its time to go.. THIS THREAD!


Locked.

 

[_wb_]

Unlocked again. Let this be a warning though. Keep the discussion respectful and to the point.

 

[_wb_]

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

Yes, I think we have a consensus on that . It looks like some kind of failed escape sequence to me

So, what about GNU/Linux? I get the point that you don't like to be told how to call something, but of course you still get to call it whatever you want. We are talking only about what's on the cardboard box and on the official website. Assuming we'll still want to use a GNU/Linux distro as the default firmware, are there any reasons why we should insist on being able to put the word "Linux" on the website and the cardboard box there without a reference to GNU?

And how big of a problem would the "no confusion with non-free variants" thing be?

I think those are the two big remaining questions. All the other requirements of the RYF certification seem to coincide with what we want to do anyway.

So let's discuss those issues now, instead of imaginary ones.

 

[moxie]

To me, the requirement to use FSF-approved terminology for the official documentation is a major sticking point. Quite apart from my personal opinion that the GNU/Linux moniker is unfair and unbalanced, I think that this point sullies the focus of the certification. If this is a certification for the hardware, then it makes sense to demand that all components have free drivers and that it may operate under a totally free OS. These requirements are about the software used to operate said hardware. However, the name one uses for said OS is not about the hardware at all, and seems to me like just such an unfair "stingy" requirement. That moves the certification from being about free hardware to being about FSF promotion.

 

[_wb_]

To me, the requirement to use FSF-approved terminology for the official documentation is a major sticking point. Quite apart from my personal opinion that the GNU/Linux moniker is unfair and unbalanced, I think that this point sullies the focus of the certification. If this is a certification for the hardware, then it makes sense to demand that all components have free drivers and that it may operate under a totally free OS. These requirements are about the software used to operate said hardware. However, the name one uses for said OS is not about the hardware at all, and seems to me like just such an unfair "stingy" requirement. That moves the certification from being about free hardware to being about FSF promotion.

We could also put a free version of Android or BSD on it and there would be no need to mention GNU at all. But I would prefer to use a distro that includes the Linux kernel and the usual GNU software.

I agree that using the word "GNU" helps to promote the FSF and their notion of Free Software, and that's exactly the point of this certification: we don't just want to have a totally free OS, without anyone knowing about it except some insiders. We want to proudly proclaim that we have hardware that ships with a totally free OS, we want to make people think about software freedom, and we want to promote Free Software (in the FSF sense, not the "free beer" sense). At least that is my opinion.

 

[comradekingu]

I think its important to arrive at a compromise, and hold the doors open, both to debate and cooperation.

We do agree amongst ourself on what we do want, that is good. Lets not expand on that into disagreements. As for where we actually disagree, and are unsure, lets make sure those sides are more important than the gains. I would not be comfortable with a certification if part of our community is up in arms about the details. I am a proponent to that we, rightfully so, raise the issue of the Gnu-moniker.

As for what that means, you can have any opinion, but it would be your own. As a community I think its vital that we focus _only_ on the factual part of that argument, and let it be heard. Also, I think FOSS is a better word to use for the cases where it applies, such as for a good BSD distro. Only use GNU where it means something, alone, and not as an extension of whatever agenda the FSF might have and the plurality of GNU foothold.

• Whether the name be Linux1/gnu2, Gnu/Linux, Linux|Gnu or any variation thereof, its important that we talk about what it means, and settle for a common base.

(I think Linux pipe (|) into GNU makes the most sense, because that's what we did with it, we took a linux kernel and made a FOSS distro out of it.) Also it puts the foot down as to "why" the GNU is first in GNU/Linux and cancels the importance of slashes, plusses, boolean logic and whatnot

I think RYF at best could be a very fruit-full discussion, and good publicity, if we uphold the discussion to the importance of its contents. I also think that where we can help FSF the most is both in term of a symbiosis, but also as an equal partner. The FSF should answer to anything we cant agree on, because they aren't unequivocally right, they can always do better, and IMO they are downright wrong about some things.

I think we should raise this issue, certification or not, and put any decisions off for as long doors cant be kept open anymore.

How about a poll and a continual update of where things are at in firstpost?

Edit: The more i think about it, the angrier I get, its time the FSF gives away some of its freedom (which is accumulated power) for the common good. Anything else is detrimental on many levels to the philosophy of FOSS. The high horse is dead, its time to stop beating it and get on our level.

 

[milkshake]

again I vote YES to FOSS where possible but NO to RYF certificate - do we all agree on this?

I mean the whole topic is about RYF certification after all.

I'm pretty sure everyone has already had a partial agreement on the fact that in order to get RYF certification too much freedom (as in speech) is taken away.

If this is the case can we close this topic and maybe open a new topic about FSF, their methodology and principals. Which is what a lot of this discussion is now REALLY about.

 

[comradekingu]

Lets see if they are willing to step down then, how much is it worth to them? Its a veto to me. If the RYF isnt 100% about foss it comes down to their call.

Gnu/Linux means flamewar at this point, since its picking up the pieces where it was left unresolved.

 

[sebt3]

We all agree on the "FLOSS drivers where possible" part.

We cant agree on the second part. And that's fine by me. ED is free to do whatever he please with his next device (if that ever come).

He now know rather well that the community have a mixed feeling with RYF sticker. So he can decide wisely.

Please dont reheat that thread that look way more like an over beaten dead horse than a sane discussion.

 

[moxie]

This is a horse that is beaten to death, beaten into a pulp, has decomposed, has nourished some grass that in turn has been eaten by a horse that is now dead. That is how dead this horse is.

 

[Løra (Lolla)]

This is a horse that is beaten to death, beaten into a pulp, has decomposed, has nourished some grass that in turn has been eaten by a horse that is now dead. That is how dead this horse is.

Omg....ewwwwww! Haha

 

[_wb_]

No, the horse is not completely dead.

I think we have a consensus on trying to make the next Pandora firmware 100% FOSS, which is also the main requirement of the RYF certification.

ED is free to do what he wants. Some of us consider the RYF sticker to be too much of a reduction of ED's freedom of speech, and for that reason they don't want to push ED to go for it. That makes perfect sense, but that doesn't mean that those people are against the RYF label, it only means that they want to let ED choose for himself.

I think there are three possible positions towards the RYF certification:

• Some of us are in favor of trying to get the RYF certification.
• Some of us don't care about the RYF certification as such, although they also want to try to make the firmware FOSS. If ED chooses to get the label, fine, if not, also fine. What counts is the contents, not the label.
• Is there anyone who is against the RYF certification, even if ED, by his own choice, chooses to comply with its requirements? If so, why?

If the situation is that some are in favor, while others don't care, then it's really just up to ED to decide which option he prefers: either he can get his "freedom of speech" to make a cardboard box with terminology on it that makes RMS cry and so on, displeasing some proportion of his current customer base (probably just a vocal minority), or he can get the RYF certification and make everybody happy.

If however the situation is that some people are actively against the RYF sticker, then it's a different decision. In that case ED cannot make everybody happy anyway, even if he "sacrifices his freedom of speech". So then it's also up to him to make a choice, but there's nothing he can do to please everybody; the best thing to do would probably be to let a poll decide.

When for example milkshake says

again I vote YES to FOSS where possible but NO to RYF certificate - do we all agree on this?

I think he actually means "the choice should be up to ED", which would put him in the "don't care" camp - or am I wrong?

If he actually means "NO" to the RYF certificate, as in "I wouldn't buy this if it has a RYF sticker, but I would if it doesn't - the RYF sticker decreases my perceived value of the device", then it is a different thing and I would expect to see some reasoning to explain that sentiment.

Let's not give ED the false impression that some people actively want the RYF sticker while others actively don't want it, when the actual situation is that some want it and others don't care about it.

 

[Znirk]

When for example milkshake says

again I vote YES to FOSS where possible but NO to RYF certificate - do we all agree on this?

I think he actually means "the choice should be up to ED", which would put him in the "don't care" camp - or am I wrong?

If he actually means "NO" to the RYF certificate, as in "I wouldn't buy this if it has a RYF sticker, but I would if it doesn't - the RYF sticker decreases my perceived value of the device", then it is a different thing and I would expect to see some reasoning to explain that sentiment.

Let's not give ED the false impression that some people actively want the RYF sticker while others actively don't want it, when the actual situation is that some want it and others don't care about it.

Jumping into the conversation from the side here, but ...

I agree with you that nobody's saying "I don't want a device with a RYF label on it", per se. But there's an argument to be made against pursuing that label in the first place: it'll take work and time, and it'll force certain choices in terms of what hardware is even an option.

And this is how not caring about it turns into "against RYF": If getting that label requires having (whatever whatever this person perceives as) inferior hardware and paying more for the final product, then those who don't care about the label do have a reason to oppose it.

 

[sebt3]

^^^ thanks, hopefully that post will finaly kill that undead thread