"Respects Your Freedom" certification?

[ZXDunny]

Yes, but in the vast scheme of things you and others like you are a very tiny but vocal minority. Catering to you and yours won't garner the sales that ED might need to stay afloat - but by advertising things like Drastic and other closed-source examples of the best that the Pandora can offer, you'll target a much larger audience which will only help to increase sales.

Advertising FOSS, while possible, will only turn a huge number of people off as they won't understand what it means.

Of course, if ED decides that our little community is just fine then he can not bother going after the sales, and advertising FOSS might even help.

It just depends on who you want to be interested in your device.

D.

 

[comradekingu]

And given at which rate wb produces children and supply them with pandoras, thats 5-6 sales right there.

FOSS is as awesome as the people working on it. FOSS has legacy support for more legacy graphics drivers than the vendors themselves do on x86. In similar fashion, ARM graphics drivers are mostly awful, across the board. In many cases it takes only a handful of people to outdo them. Thats important to me, because FOSS has a common denominator in that it benefits all.

 

[hedwards]

The main advantage of FOSS is that everyone can improve stuff, fix stuff, replace stuff with other stuff, and fork stuff. Of course when something does the job fine, there's no need to change things. But having the option to do so is very important in the long run.

Take for instance my latest project, Pandora Image Viewer. It is based on vp, a minimalistic SDL-based GPL'ed image viewer. I took that source code to begin with, which helped a lot to get things started. It uses SDL, which is FOSS, which allowed notaz to tweak it for the Pandora hardware. It uses libjpeg and libpng, which are FOSS so other people could tweak those libraries with NEON optimizations. All those tweaks and optimizations were available to me because those optimized forks are also FOSS.

Other example: freamon wanted another GUI (even though we already had two: MiniMenu and XFCE). It is because the firmware is FOSS (and also because OpenBox is FOSS) that it was relatively easy for him to add another choice to the list.

Even though the vast majority of users will not touch or look at any of the code, the fact that they can is important. If something bothers you, you can always change it if it's FOSS. That is the point.

FOSS matters to many of us. If the Pandora would have a proprietary OS (e.g. Windows), I would not be interested in it at all.

That's been possible on Windows for ages. I remember switching out the UI in Win 98 and that was like 15 years ago on a closed source OS. Same goes for the imageviewer that's built into Windows, there's nothing that prevents you from switching it out for something else. Granted, you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it is possible to replace it with something else. And people with any sense tend to do so.

Personally, I did buy it because it was running an open system, but it makes not one difference to me whether I have to load a 3rd party OS or use the one that's built in, so long as it's not locked. And most people out there are even more tolerant.

I think the binary blobs are unfortunate, but realistically, if you haven't got experience working with hardware drivers, then it's best not to even bother trying without studying up on it thoroughly. The last thing you want is to damage your hardware.

Lastly, while it's possible to look at the code without being a programmer, if you're not a programmer that's familiar with the whole source tree, then the knowledge of it is going to be rather limited. You might make a minor fix here or there, but you're going to be taking a risk as you're not going to necessarily understand where that part of the source fits in relation to the rest of the program.

 

[Grench]

And just like that we're back to completely glossing over the loss of freedoms that the FSF/RYF certification requires.

Making the device so that it has an included FOSS alternative - fine, great, happy for it. We don't need a certification from any company or organization to do this.

The FSF/RYF requirement that it not ship with, advertise or mention non-FOSS alternatives is too restrictive.

The FSF/RYF requirement that it have pre-approval rights to any and all marketing materials and packaging is simply over the top.

The FSF/RYF requirement of stating "GNU/Linux" when referencing the OS is akin to trademark and non-free software requirements, and unfitting of their objective.

We don't need the FSF/RYF certification to, 'Do it right'. We also do not need to restrict to only FOSS to have a FOSS option available on the device.

FSF/RYF doesn't want just a FOSS alternative provided for the device. They insist on 100% 'FOSS ownership' over the device.

FOSS alternative: good.

FSF/RYF BS: bad. Entirely not worth it.

 

[comradekingu]

hedwards

So FOSS has no merit because you can rice your windows install? And sane people supposedly do this. Im going to give you the benefit of the doubt and guess you meant replacing the whole thing. So maybe none of us is going to rewrite a closed blob. Why do we want to give ourselves this task at hand? That sounds to me like a good reason to avoid said problem...

Grench

I feel like we are back to discussing things you have made up.

You provide zero evidence to back up your claims and statements. Like for example, is the current software-stack too restrictive? It must by your logic be, since it features no closed source, apart from the blobs. Case in point, best be avoided, if you agree with that, you agree with the FSF, which isnt what you think it is. And that next thing you were about to say, just dont.

Your arguments are are in the order of: we dont need to put colouring on the box, nor does the logo have to be in colour. Why? I dont think like you do, i cant >into your agenda.

You know that linus owns the linux trademark, or not? Because if you bothered to actually do some research or read the thread you would know he is perfectly fine with people calling it GNU/Linux, as per their liking.

Incomprehensible English, followed by your slogan, again.

wikipedia/Proof_by_assertion is how close you came to be taken seriously.

Edit:

FOSS alternative: good.
FSF/RYF BS: bad. Entirely not worth it.

Just wanted to quote that verbatim in case your better judgment found it in your interest to remove it.

 

[_wb_]

I still think the RYF certification is a very good match with the OpenPandora philosophy. The OPT does everything they can to respect our freedom to do whatever we want with the hardware. The firmware is as FOSS as possible. The blob for the GPU is unfortunate but not by our choice. The community is heterogeneous but many of us are FOSS enthusiasts and nearly all of us favor an open, DRM-free system. The overlap between RYF and the OpenPandora philosophy is too big to be ignored, although of course it's not a perfect match -- it never is. Let's not focus on the petty details but on the general picture.

Should I send an email to the FSF to clarify some of the RYF certification requirements in the case of the Pandora and its potential successor?

 

[pmprog]

Should I send an email to the FSF to clarify some of the RYF certification requirements in the case of the Pandora and its potential successor?

Sure, you might as well. Then that will give ED et al an idea of whether it fits in with their game plan, and whether they should try and apply for it.

 

[Rockthesmurf]

@_wb_ Although in general your last post makes sense, I just wanted to counter that although a lot of developers make their projects open source, I wouldn't say they make up a very big part of the install base (as in there maybe 100 developers who open source their projects, but an install base of 5,000 people, essentially the % of developers is quite low). Sure you can argue that things being open source can benefit the end user (so everyone benefits), but right now I don't see an open source DS emulator (with whatever flavour license you like) doing a better job than DraStic, so there is examples of projects using both philosophies. Could an open source emulator be better than DraStic? YES! Could Exophase write a better library for loading png's than libpng? YES!

I also wonder how many of the open source Pandora projects have been forked and had any changes made to them? Would it be a figure close to 1% again? So 100 developers out of 5000 users (2%) of users open sourcing projects, of which 1% active get forked/used, leaves us with 0.02%. These numbers are pulled out of thin air, and the 0.02% doesn't really mean anything (by itself), but I just wanted to try and push a little perspective about how much of the Pandora is helped by open source projects.

There is the other side of how software that we run on the Pandora makes use of open source libraries, and I personally think that is great, although I would like to know how many people make any changes at all to the open source libraries they link against, again to pull numbers out of the air, I'd guess < 1%, most people will just download the source, build it to a library and link against it on their project. Practically nobody feels compelled to build libm libc libstdc++ libgcc etc. themselves, yet a lot of people want to build libpng themselves, actually I'd argue most developers actually don't want to build anything themselves (building is boring, causes headaches, using up time, gives you a loads of different libs with different compile flags, half of them not optimized properly), instead most developers would rather just have a bunch of prebuilt libs they can just link against. I would have thought the most prominent flow would be: I need to do task X, is there a lib to do it, (yes there are normally loads) which is the 'main' one, can I use it in my project without paying, if yes then use it, if not find something else. Not everyone follows this, but my guess would be that most cases would follow it.

I note and accept your examples of the faster libpng and jpeg libraries and I 'get it' I don't think what you are saying is incorrect, I guess for me it is just more about the weighting. I can't help but think that DraStic by itself is a bigger selling factor right now than a heck of a lot of other software. But the thing is, if DraStic went open source, my viewpoint wouldn't change, I'm not for/against any particular license, I just feel that the end resulting software is what is important, and it is that which should get the limelight, not any talks about licenses, affiliations with bodies that push licenses, etc. If this device was practically only used by developers, maybe this stuff would be more important (?) but from what I understand the vast majority of Pandora users do not develop for it (and to be honest, the vast majority of users don't come to this forum to express their opinions either way, the viewpoint on this forum is probably weighted towards the more geeky/developer minded).

In terms of emailing FSF for information about RYF, I'd say absolutely, information (facts) are king. It is best to make decisions knowing all the facts, maybe some people will change their standpoint once the exact facts are all on the table.

 

[comradekingu]

Those examples are all app specific code. All the system code is available on git, including contributions to ångström and whatever patches are on top of that. Its ok for source to be closed, as long as its voluntary, as per RYF terms.

Drastic is a selling point in its own accord, it wont be any less so just because it is stated that something holds true for the system it runs on.

Edit: In a sense its a freedom for the users, in a sense that everyone is an user. Which makes sense. And in equal measure that freedom is available on a system level. Developers are equally encumbered with closed source blobs, with the users, who are very much in the same boat. Doesn't really matter if you are able or not to so something about it. The barrier, for the case of argument is there, even if (best case,) you know how to deal with it.

 

[_wb_]

The percentage of devs is always very low. I would say that in the Pandora community, the percentage is exceptionally high -- still no more than 5% or so, but even 1% is a lot. How many homebrew devs do major consoles or smartphones have? Probably not much more than we have, but those devices are sold in the millions (e.g. 153 million for the Nintendo DS).

Devs are always a minority, but since they're the only productive force in the community (non-dev users do not really help much except by generating a sale and maybe some word-of-mouth advertising), I think it makes sense to give more weight to their opinions than to those of regular users. It may well be true that most users don't care about licenses as long as they can get their stuff to run (preferably gratis), but their ignorance and apathy does not justify ignoring the FOSS-loving majority of the devs, even if the group of devs is itself only a minority of the (potential) customers.

I just wanted to try and push a little perspective about how much of the Pandora is helped by open source projects.

The Pandora firmware is completely FOSS (or at least 99.9% of it). If all those projects did not exist (the Linux kernel, the GNU project, XFCE, the projects specifically created for the Pandora like libPND, MiniMenu etc), we would not have a firmware at all.

If you take a look at the top rated and top downloaded PNDs on the repo, you'll find a large percentage of FOSS software as well. DraStic is a notable exception, and there are other notable exceptions, but most of it is FOSS. And most of that FOSS software are existing FOSS projects that could be ported to the Pandora (and adapted for its screen size and controls) precisely because they were FOSS.

So if you want to get a perspective on how much of the Pandora is helped by FOSS projects, I think it is obvious that it has been, and still is, overwhelmingly helped by them, to the extent that it is nearly impossible to even imagine the software side of the Pandora to ever have become a reality without them.

 

[milkshake]

I don't know why we are arguing the merits of FOSS software because we know that in principle they server the greater good, but in this case (as per the thread title) what matters is the restrictions that RYF certificate imposes that I think ED would benefit more without.

 

[Rockthesmurf]

_wb_: If open source didn't exist, would we still have a Pandora firmware? According to you, no, according to me: it is impossible to know (although I would guess the answer is yes). Essentially developers are lazy, they want the path of least resistance, they will use what ever is the fastest and costs as little as possible (typically zero). I don't see the fact lots of projects use open source as a sign that lots of developers care about open source, I just see it that it is an easy option that does the job (in most cases). In terms of adapting screen sizes etc. if a closed source game has a config file with screen dimensions and input mappings you can achieve the same result. Whether the game has a binary compatible with arm available is another question.

@milkshake: on the whole I agree, the point of my (longer) post above, was really getting at should we have any support for any particular license or certification? My feeling is no, don't make out one is better than another. There are people that fight both sides of that battle. The better solution to me is to not push from this angle at all, and instead just focus on the end result (in terms of good software, good hardware, etc.)

 

[Rockthesmurf]

How many homebrew devs do major consoles or smartphones have? Probably not much more than we have

I'm not sure if you were talking about % wise here? The number of home brew iOS developers is insanely large there is a plethora of homebrew apps getting released on the store every day. If you are talking about % wise then yes the Pandora probably has a higher ratio (this is probably what you meant, but just to be clear).

 

[_wb_]

How many homebrew devs do major consoles or smartphones have? Probably not much more than we have

I'm not sure if you were talking about % wise here? The number of home brew iOS developers is insanely large there is a plethora of homebrew apps getting released on the store every day. If you are talking about % wise then yes the Pandora probably has a higher ratio (this is probably what you meant, but just to be clear).

I was talking about percentages, yes. But even in absolute numbers: how many DS or PSP or Vita homebrewers are there? How many Nokia N900 homebrewers? If you're talking about specific devices, the number of homebrewers is usually small even in absolute numbers. Of course iOS and Android are different, there are a huge amount of people doing stuff on those platforms, but that doesn't really count -- or else you can just as well count all the Android and Linux developers as being Pandora devs, since you can run their software on the Pandora.

Anyway, the point of the RYF certification is not to push certain licenses for the applications that run on the hardware; it only talks about the license for the software that ships with the device, in particular, the default OS. It is all about having hardware that does not restrict you in what you can do with it, e.g. by not allowing you to run arbitrary programs. If you want to run proprietary software on RYF hardware, that is fine. If you don't, that is fine too.

 

[milkshake]

The point your keep missing when you refer back to the generic FOSS goal is that RYF is also restricting in terms of how it can advertised and boxed and what can officially be endorsed etc. This really is the crux of the matter not how good the FOSS goal is to everyone.

 

[Grench]

How many homebrew devs do major consoles or smartphones have? Probably not much more than we have

I'm not sure if you were talking about % wise here? The number of home brew iOS developers is insanely large there is a plethora of homebrew apps getting released on the store every day. If you are talking about % wise then yes the Pandora probably has a higher ratio (this is probably what you meant, but just to be clear).

 I was talking about percentages, yes. But even in absolute numbers: how many DS or PSP or Vita homebrewers are there? How many Nokia N900 homebrewers? If you're talking about specific devices, the number of homebrewers is usually small even in absolute numbers. Of course iOS and Android are different, there are a huge amount of people doing stuff on those platforms, but that doesn't really count -- or else you can just as well count all the Android and Linux developers as being Pandora devs, since you can run their software on the Pandora.

Anyway, the point of the RYF certification is not to push certain licenses for the applications that run on the hardware; it only talks about the license for the software that ships with the device, in particular, the default OS. It is all about having hardware that does not restrict you in what you can do with it, e.g. by not allowing you to run arbitrary programs. If you want to run proprietary software on RYF hardware, that is fine. If you don't, that is fine too.

Just as long as you don't mention proprietary software in your advertising, show it on your main web page, display it on your packaging, include it in the packaging (even as a drivers disk), and especially not on the device as an alternative.

You must reference the FSF/RYF on all materials, vet all advertising and packaging through the FSF and agree to never say anything negative about the FSF, join their organization using a closed source contract and generally drink the Koolaide.

We can do FOSS as primary software without bowing to and paying homage (and money) to the FSF. They're a 3rd party that does not need to be involved with or be granted any control over this product or process.

Not joining retains flexibility in the project. Joining surrenders real freedom in order to get a 'Freedom' stamp.

Entirely not worth it.

 

[_wb_]

Your arguments are about some fictional straw man, not about RYF.
 

Just as long as you don't mention proprietary software in your advertising,

Made up.
 

show it on your main web page,

Made up.
 

display it on your packaging,

Made up.
 

include it in the packaging (even as a drivers disk), and especially not on the device as an alternative.

True.
 

You must reference the FSF/RYF on all materials,

Made up.
 

vet all advertising and packaging through the FSF

Made up.
 

and agree to never say anything negative about the FSF,

Made up.
 

join their organization using a closed source contract

Made up.

 

[comradekingu]

Grench
So your one valid point was a drivers disk in 2013, for a device without CD-rom, or inclusion of something that we don't include, to prove a non-existant point. Golf clap initiated.

So you cant withhold freedom higher up in a chain if you want it distributed lower down, so a common freedom must be equal to all. Next lesson, you cant have clarity whilst still being diffuse, such is the nature of having a claim to only doing one thing, when its that one thing you claim to do. And its something we already do. Not a point in your favour. People don't know much about FOSS, yourself included, spelling it out clearly is beneficial. Suggesting it be done in the manner you describe is akin to why that isn't the case now, or to put it in your own style of wording, entirely spurious. With such a poor command of English i would look elsewhere for things to be concerned about...

So the question becomes, why not? Instead you question why something could be a reason not to do something, to further your agenda, not on the merits of why it makes sense. Disregarding that doesn't further your point, which isn't merely hypothetical, its made up...

I have qualms with putting my head into such an ill-devised logic. The FSF didn't produce a license that by and large is the backbone of FOSS for any reason but why we use it, in equal measure with those other licenses carrying the same FOSS banner. How that magically changes when its certifying those same freedoms for a hardware device is beyond me.

 

[Grench]

Your arguments are about some fictional straw man, not about RYF.

This again? The proof to everything you claim as, "Made up" is on the FSF's RYF certification REQUIREMENTS page:


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

Just as long as you don't mention proprietary software in your advertising,

 
Made up.

Exhibit 1:


"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."


Exhibit 2:


"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."


Inclusion of proprietary software in advertising the product is a recommendation for use of said software in conjunction with the product.

show it on your main web page,

Made up.

Exhibit 2 again:


"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."


As the web page is an advertising statement, inclusion of proprietary software would construe a recommendation of use of said proprietary software with the product. This would include emulated game ROMs. Game ROMs are proprietary software programs, not encumbered media formats.

display it on your packaging,

Made up.

Exhibit 1 again:


"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."


Exhibit 2 again:


"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."


Exhibit 3:


"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."


Packaging is advertising. Advertising proprietary software in conjunction with the device is a recommendation. The FSF's restrictions on statements of recommendation are clear and include product packaging.

include it in the packaging (even as a drivers disk), and especially not on the device as an alternative.

True.

You must reference the FSF/RYF on all materials,

Made up.

Exhibit 3 again:


"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."


So, if that doesn't cover all materials, then what does it leave out?

vet all advertising and packaging through the FSF

Made up.

Exhibit 3 again:


"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 do you expect to get FSF approval for the terminology used in the above without the FSF vetting the materials?

and agree to never say anything negative about the FSF,

Made up.

Exhibit 3 again:


"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."


I'm quite certain that if you are required to use, "FSF approved terminology for the FSF's activities and work" that they would not allow negative statements about their own organization to pass their own vetting process.

Note that this includes interviews and even this web page - which may need to have my comments censored if the project were to join the FSF/RYF program.

join their organization using a closed source contract

Made up.

Exhibit 4 from right at the top of the page, in bold:


"The following page outlines the general criteria for hardware products that bear the Respects Your Freedom hardware certification mark. However, each certified product carries with it contractual obligations that may differ from those listed on this page."


Note: "contractual obligations"


Note: "may differ"

There is no public listing of active FSF/RYF contracts.


So - clearly I'm delusional and making all of this up.  It is all right there on the FSF/RYF web site and clearly stated.

Again,  

FOSS = good.

FSF/RYF certification = bad.  It requires the project to give up far too many freedoms, particularly speech.  Entirely not worth it.

 

[comradekingu]

So in conclusion you don't know how to read, or write a coherent argument. Your level of argumentation doesn't exceed calling something bad. You cant quote the facts of the matter to support your ludicrous claims because it wasn't there to begin with.

Why so up in arms about freedom of speech if you don't know what to do with it?