"Respects Your Freedom" certification?


Possible SoCs that could probably be made to work with 100% Free Software using existing reverse-engineered FOSS drivers: Exynos 4412, 5220, 5420 (they use Mali GPUs, for which RE is well under way or nearly finished), Snapdragon 600 or 800 (uses Adreno), Rockchip RK3188 (Mali), HiSilicon K3V3 (also Mali).
+ old Allwinner SoCs (just mentioning it in case we can't get a new one)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
isn't proprietary software (drivers) also "free software"? I think the important part for a base system is to be open source. So everybody can look at the code, validateing it, improving it etc.

let's just try to make it 100% open source (if possible) and put a 100% open source sticker on the box and advertisement photos - that should get the message across!

I very much like _wb_'s Lima driver idea!!! ; )

Proprietary software by definition is not Free Software, so no, proprietary drivers are not "free software", except if you mean "free" in only the sense of "gratis": of course some proprietary software is given away for free, but that in itself does not make it Free Software.

Also let's try to avoid confusion between "Open Source" and "Free Software" - those two terms mostly mean the same thing and there is a lot of overlap between them, but software can be Open Source without being Free (e.g. if you can look at the code but are not allowed to make changes to it), and there are also licenses that qualify as Free according to the FSF (e.g. the original BSD license) while they do not satisfy all criteria of the official Open Source Definition. Another example of a license that is Open Source but not Free Software is the RPL.

I think it's probably best to advertise that the software is both Free and Open Source, using the "FOSS" term instead of mentioning only the "Free" aspect or only the "Open Source" aspect.
 
I'd like the certification and would pay more for a device having it. But as exophase said, it will be difficult to find acceptable parts (see e.g. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/08/07/1930208/aosp-maintainer-quits). Vendors still seem to think being even a little open will hurt them. Don't know why, looks to me like patents should address their worries, but their might be something special in this tech segment. I sometimes think they just don't want anybody to see how crappy their IP really is:)
 
@ _wb_

ah, yes I was confused. Thought freeware would count to free software (the name is basically suggesting that).
 
So no, ZXDunny, none of your software would have to be removed, because I assume that none of your software would be shipped with new units.
Ok, but would OPT be able to advertise the Repo (which is the official source of software for the machine) if it has non-free elements hosted on it?

D.
 
Ok, but would OPT be able to advertise the Repo (which is the official source of software for the machine) if it has non-free elements hosted on it?
Yes. It is a source of general purpose software and the user is free to pick and choose what they like. The intention of the "freedom" certification is that everything that you need to run the application as intended is free. The OS, the drivers, the main applications, and any officially endorsed applications.
 
The leemote yeelong is the only pc that i know of which fits the bill. Its now ancient, but it still sells for reasons not related to being a netbook.

Think of free as in the norse word "fri", which doesnt entitle "gratis".  "Free as in freedom" does not describe a characteristic. It is the free that is in free-dom.

For whatever reason greatness (the things we do have) align very well with the free aspect of things. Its not by accident that the software doesn't report your usage, mines your data, knows who your friends are, your location etc etc. And for whatever reason the Pandora project can exist and continues in this fashion, i don't think its something to just be complacent about. It is vastly different, and i don't think its bad to educate users as to how. For every freedom you have, thats better for you, and its better in comparison to everything else.

You cant build a project on freeware, but lets say you could, for many purposes it could be the same. It isn't. And while much of it shares that free as in gratis, you aren't selling your soul to the tune of that dance.  Those EULAs users click past, the terms and agreements, those matter, what is written there matters. Its not about the nuisance of having to scroll-click through. Read it once and then read the GPL ( or the apache license, the BSD, the mozilla, take your pick,) all of a sudden its clear who is on what side.

I used to click through those thinking it was just an exercise in legality that didnt concern me. It wasnt the inherrent nature of that which changed, it was that GNU/Linux was better than windows, it didnt do the inept things i had learnt to accept as inevitable. It made sense.

Freedom is our friend, not our enemy. All it means is that the computer can not spy on us. As for the tinfoil hat reasoning of that argument, think of how many big companies you know of that aren't built around that business model. The hardware industry at large seems to be about planned obsolescence. That is also evil, (because it did not happen by accident.)

Show me an artisan product made in Europe, show me the workmanship, the effort and the pride. Chances are its niche, expensive, old, but it still works, and its right. Any sensible users wouldn't want their product, and by extension of that construct it so that its made to fail, defective by design, so how does it make sense to buy one?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As expected, I would be against this. I have much respect for many people who are behind this, but for me personally I completely disagree.

I would like a successor to have the maximum freedom, so I wouldn't want it to impose conditions that stop certain software being released/promoted/etc. By saying KAMI RETRO (with its currently license) couldn't be on the official store would mean you are restricting freedom, you are saying unless we follow certain licensing requirements we can't release onto the store.

I honestly feel pushing this free/open angle will make the product less popular, with less software.

ED has been active in making it possible to release commercial software on the Pandora and indeed putting commercial software on there himself. The repo that Milkshake has made for us has been set up to allow paid for software. One of our best developers, Exophase, with probably the single biggest project (in terms of investment, not porting existing, but writing from scratch) uses non open licenses. I just feel that things are working now. People are free to release under whatever license they like. Users are free to choose what software they download.
 
@ Steven Craft : From reading the OP then I can understand your worries, which I shared, however it seems like the following is a more detailed explanation so from my perspective there is no major problem on the software side with the idea of aiming for RYF certification.

It's OK to advertise that it can run non-free software or free software with non-free data or free software emulating non-free games or non-free software emulating non-free games or whatever. It's not OK to advertise that it is somehow better to run non-free software on it than free software, to require non-free firmware to be able to run any software at all, or to ship non-free software with it. As long as it is possible to fully use the device (i.e. all of the hardware that is on the tech specs, including wifi and GPU) using 100% Free Software, and the "default" that gets shipped with newly sold units is 100% Free, it is OK.

So no, ZXDunny, none of your software would have to be removed, because I assume that none of your software would be shipped with new units.
 
@Mr_Loon Yes, didn't read that, so that certainly makes things a lot better! I have been approached about shipping KAMI RETRO bundled with devices in one territory, which this would limit, however I wouldn't be so bothered about that. 
 
It would still be allowed to have "external" resellers (like ekianjo, Linux-SWAT or Link) who bundle the device with licensed proprietary software. If they use their own packaging (like ekianjo), they wouldn't be allowed to display the "RYF" label on it, but other than that, there is no problem.
 
It would still be allowed to have "external" resellers (like ekianjo, Linux-SWAT or Link) who bundle the device with licensed proprietary software. If they use their own packaging (like ekianjo), they wouldn't be allowed to display the "RYF" label on it, but other than that, there is no problem.
But this does mean ED can't sell a free and non-free version, whatever that would mean? (not that I think there'd necessarily be much need for that)
 
With non restricted hardware you could have things like a GPU that works on other things than linux kernel. Like BSD, lots of people there. Or haiku, plan9, reactOS, gnu/hurd, openindiana, whatever you sense of freedom would desire.

The point that can be made from shipping only fri/libre/free apps in the repo is far greater than the nuisance of adding another repo manually or downloading packages from elsewhere.

While having a do not advertise non-free applications policy is extreme, its not unfeasible. At the very least there could be a non-free section on the repo. Like debian has.

There is no link to commercial software with freedom just as much as there is no link to gratis. There is however a very distinct separation of freedom on one hand and proprietary software on the other. You cant have both, thats is not discrimination.

You can still charge for downloads with free software. In fact, ill line right up and pay the monetary cost of what it has cost to develop and then it can get a better license, everyone wins. I'm sure people would be very happy to follow suit. I supported the pandora software development fund for one reason alone, free as in freedom applications and games. A lot of other people did the same thing, and since craig is not in charge of the software development fund for a successor i think people will be more than happy to fund it.

So all in all its not a loss to go with total freedom. Nobody is deterred from buying it when having to download from a seperate repo, but LOTS of people are going to buy it for the freedom aspect alone, and everyone else is going to be more-so enticed to buy and participate.

Lots of companies do terribad handheld consoles with android and locked down everything, spyware, defective by design, im not interested, lets be different.

Different from mediocre and bad, the market for that is saturated. Why try to be ahead in what others do wrong. Lets do it right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, would it make sense to start a poll about whether or not to attempt to get RYF certification? Or shall we just continue discussion here?

I would be very interested to hear the opinions of ED, Fatih, MWeston, DaveC etc. and certainly also the opinions of the main software devs like notaz, skeezix, etc.
 
So, would it make sense to start a poll about whether or not to attempt to get RYF certification? Or shall we just continue discussion here?
That wouldn't be a smart move I think.

I don't want ED to get the wrong idea that the community is forcing him onto something he doesn't like.

They are experts, so they should make better decisions if they know their customer base well. (not like Microsoft)

These kind of certificattions really depends on how many people are giving a damn about them. They are like graduate certificates.

If many of our potential customers have confidence in it, then it would be cool to have if just to use it once, then throw it away.

But I doubt that's the case as most of us have never heard of such a thing. It's like some backwater lunatics suddenly decides they can patent the moon and stars.

People are stupid creatures, I guess, most of us can never see ahead of the curve. People only starts to respect human rights after the rivalry between the last piece of the ultimate justice puzzle called 'Merica and the source of all evil that is Nazi emergies. The same thing applies to organic food, and green energy. People only started to regard these as the new standard of superiority after the public media said so.

I have more faith in ED giving out free Pandoras to big youtubers and famous people on facebook and twitter. There is no strong sense of morality in this generation of people, this I'm certain. People follow celebrities rather than discipline. We are more like "Lady gaga loves this machine, so I must have it", than "this tut represents the last remaining bit of respectfulness in this bleak world filled with greedy mega globe coperations".

If we really want pandora to look good, we can just make up a few certifications on our own, and play with words a bit (we want similarities, but not lead copies), so that pandora can be claimed to be the most awesome nut crack in the universe and such. I doubt most average people would look up these certificates before they make a purchase.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's like some backwater lunatics suddenly decides they can patent the moon and stars.
this isnt the most solid reasoning ive seen. Those people are the ones fighting against software-patents ironically.

Ignorance is bliss isn't a good defense for being willfully ignorant. That a majority do or dont do something is a ad populace argument, it doesnt say anything about the topic at hand.

Does lady gaga need to use proprietary software, if so what is she doing with a next gen linux handheld, and what difference does it make if its 95% or 100%? The difference seems to me that OSX is -50% and windows much the same. It doesnt only take away essential freedoms, it violates them and reaches into other issues too.

You can market free software to anyone you like, nobody is forcing you to make the sales-pitch about the free as in freedom. Those people are disregarding the whole idea, or they get their eyes up for what is the real difference, thats good.  But for the educated people that do care, those are the core of the linux segment, and they are really nice because they contribute a lot. If you are out to sell lets say 10000 devices, you are in good business if you cater to the non-mainstream, making sure to correct everything thats wrong with generic, refining each step and putting the bar at as high as it can go.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FSF's objection to Debian (from the page I linked above):

Debian's Social Contract states the goal of making Debian entirely free software, and Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree software out of the official Debian system. However, Debian also provides a repository of nonfree software. According to the project, this software is "not part of the Debian system," but the repository is hosted on many of the project's main servers, and people can readily learn about these nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online package database.
Are the hardware certification requirements really any less extreme than that?
By way of explanation, a general-purpose facility for installing other programs, with which the choice of programs to install comes directly from the user, is not considered to steer users toward anything in particular. However, the product suggests using the facility to install certain programs, that is steering users towards those programs.
The "general-purpose facility for installing other programs" would be the package manager itself. To get endorsed, looks like Debian wouldn't be allowed to mention the nonfree repository on their official website.
 
And what does that have to do with hardware? If you mess up with hardware you are left to reverse engineer and figure it out yourself, shipping a non-free repo section only means there wont be any praise for that, its not like they come after you.

Just ship a device you flash yourself, that is 100% to begin with, or tamper with convenience over freedom, for whatever balance you end up with, its not that hard, problem (that wasnt there to begin with) solved.
 
The "problem" would be if FSF think that mentioning a non-free repo on the official website is equal to "recommending" it.
 
Back
Top