"Respects Your Freedom" certification?

[commander-beef]

..after some reading..

uff, where's freedom in 'RYF'? i should ask 

but, finally things are solved and its clearly visible that we dont need RYF right now, because theres to much FORCE to be FREEDOM.

 

[_wb_]

uff, where's freedom in 'RYF'? i should ask 

Well like it has been said in this thread several times, the FSF is all about maximizing the freedom of users to do whatever they want with their hardware and software, at the expense of the freedom of manufacturers and software developers to restrict the freedom of the users. That's why it is called "Respects Your Freedom": the "you" is the potential buyer of the device, not its manufacturer.

 

[commander-beef]

uff, where's freedom in 'RYF'? i should ask 

Well like it has been said in this thread several times, the FSF is all about maximizing the freedom of users to do whatever they want with their hardware and software, at the expense of the freedom of manufacturers and software developers to restrict the freedom of the users. That's why it is called "Respects Your Freedom": the "you" is the potential buyer of the device, not its manufacturer.

yeah, i know, i know, but hiding a non-open source apps in repo isnt sounds like freedom for consumer anyway. 

 

[Rockthesmurf]

@_wb_ Thanks for actually contacting them and getting some answers, it is good to get something a little more concrete than all of our speculations.

For me, this certification doesn't really work for us, it is too restrictive, we want the ability to run on hardware with binary blobs (we'd rather always have source, but given the choice of price/performance vs source license we want to be able to at least come to our own decision rather than be forced to always take the open source driver version), we want to be able to promote the device running all software (not just open source software), we don't want to be governed about how we describe our software and Linux name.


When I say 'we' above, I don't mean everyone in the Pandora community, I mean at least plural, and personally think the majority of Pandora users.

I am still curious (as a side note) what their stance is on closed source, commercial ROMs, as the Pandora promotional materials often are really centered around emulated games (sure the Pandora can do heaps of cool stuff, no argument there). I do understand why some people count ROMs as being different to closed source software, but I don't really agree with it. You can take any closed source application (not ROM) and disassemble it, you can step through the byte code, see what the instructions do, see what gets stored into memory, and so on. I'm not really sure how this is different to an emulator running a closed source ROM.

 

[comradekingu]

You are once again bombarding your speculation and imaginative interpretation to the status of established fact.

It's all right here in black & white.

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


You choose to ignore the portions you don't like and try to apply a less than literal meaning to much of it.


It is a contract. Contracts don't work that way.

Criteria doesnt mean contract. That is not the contract.  They are requirements, not obligations. You are not bound by contract unless you sign one, and that isn't one.

 

Termination
Failing to meet these requirements at any point can result in immediate revocation of certification. However, if the failure was unintentional we will look for a way to resolve the problem amicably by bringing the product into compliance with these terms.

Its a text, thats how texts work.

 

[_wb_]

I don't see a difference between closed ROMs and closed-source software in general. It's the same thing - the only difference is whether you're running it directly on the hardware, or on hardware emulated in software - but that doesn't really make a difference.

If you're showing a FOSS emulator playing a closed-source ROM, you're showing two things at the same time though. It's a bit like showing a FOSS game engine with proprietary game data (data can be more than just sprites and music, it can also be "code"). Or a FOSS video player playing back a DRM-protected proprietary interactive movie. Part of it is FOSS, part of it is not at all FOSS.

 

[comradekingu]

Which is what firefox is if the logo is in view. A console rom for cases it wouldnt be an image, is just code running on its own accord. You would be hard pressed to find any networking, and no info on the user is stored in any way in which privacy is endangered.

 

[Grench]

You are once again bombarding your speculation and imaginative interpretation to the status of established fact.

It's all right here in black & white.

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


You choose to ignore the portions you don't like and try to apply a less than literal meaning to much of it.


It is a contract. Contracts don't work that way.

Criteria doesnt mean contract. That is not the contract.  They are requirements, not obligations. You are not bound by contract unless you sign one, and that isn't one.

You are correct. That is not a contract. It's the listing of primary criteria that they require in their contracts. Please note paragraph 1 of http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria


"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."

Termination


Failing to meet these requirements at any point can result in immediate revocation of certification. However, if the failure was unintentional we will look for a way to resolve the problem amicably by bringing the product into compliance with these terms.

 
Its a text, thats how texts work.

See also, "submit to the FSF's authority or else."

 

[_wb_]

You are once again bombarding your speculation and imaginative interpretation to the status of established fact.

It's all right here in black & white.

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


You choose to ignore the portions you don't like and try to apply a less than literal meaning to much of it.


It is a contract. Contracts don't work that way.

Criteria doesnt mean contract. That is not the contract.  They are requirements, not obligations. You are not bound by contract unless you sign one, and that isn't one.

You are correct. That is not a contract. It's the listing of primary criteria that they require in their contracts. Please note paragraph 1 of http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria


"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."

"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."

 

[Grench]

 

[Grench]

You are once again bombarding your speculation and imaginative interpretation to the status of established fact.

It's all right here in black & white.

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

You choose to ignore the portions you don't like and try to apply a less than literal meaning to much of it.

It is a contract. Contracts don't work that way.

Criteria doesnt mean contract. That is not the contract.  They are requirements, not obligations. You are not bound by contract unless you sign one, and that isn't one.

You are correct. That is not a contract. It's the listing of primary criteria that they require in their contracts. Please note paragraph 1 of http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria

"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."

 "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."

Sheesh.

comradekingu made a claim that, "You are not bound by contract unless you sign one, and that isn't one."

There most certainly IS a contract involved to get FSF's RYF certification, per my quote.

The fact that there may be additional or alternative language used in the CONTRACT is irrelevant to the fact that there would still be a CONTRACT required and that the listing is the base language that the FSF uses in CONTRACT negotiations.

 

[_wb_]

A contract is required, but that website with criteria is not the contract.

I still think it would be good to try to get a GPU with a FOSS driver. I also think it's a good idea to clarify the licenses of repo software and at least to allow users to view only FOSS PNDs - maybe that would even be a good default setting. Finally I think it's a good idea to mention "GNU/Linux" and "Free Software" in Pandora (successor) marketing material - not because the FSF likes those words, but because it's an important aspect of the identity and appeal of the project.

Whether or not we should further pursue RYF certification depends mostly on the hardware we can and want to get.

 

[Exophase]

I'm going to have to disagree with you _wb_, I don't think whether or not ED should pursue RYF depends on the hardware the Pandora successor gets. A lot of people are uncomfortable with other aspects of the license and the potential advertising restrictions and nature of what "steer towards" are still leaving a lot of possible problems on the table. That's balanced against the fact that only you and comradekingu really seem to care about it getting RYF in the first place. As far as I'm concerned you generally come off as a reasonable and balanced guy but I really feel like you're pushing too hard on something that plays to your own interests and are not really listening to what other people want. Ultimately this is all up to ED really but his utter lack of participation in this thread should be really telling.

I think you should just accept this and let it go instead of dragging this thread in circles with Grench another million times :/ And I'm not just saying that because I think I might tear my eyes out if I see the exact same posts made in this thread one more time.

 

[commander-beef]

I was wondering why _wb_ is pushing to RYF side that much. Maybe personal interests involved somehow? 

 

[_wb_]

I was wondering why _wb_ is pushing to RYF side that much. Maybe personal interests involved somehow? 

No, no personal interests involved except for some general sympathy for the FSF.

I'm going to have to disagree with you _wb_, I don't think whether or not ED should pursue RYF depends on the hardware the Pandora successor gets. A lot of people are uncomfortable with other aspects of the license and the potential advertising restrictions and nature of what "steer towards" are still leaving a lot of possible problems on the table. That's balanced against the fact that only you and comradekingu really seem to care about it getting RYF in the first place. As far as I'm concerned you generally come off as a reasonable and balanced guy but I really feel like you're pushing too hard on something that plays to your own interests and are not really listening to what other people want. Ultimately this is all up to ED really but his utter lack of participation in this thread should be really telling.


I think you should just accept this and let it go instead of dragging this thread in circles with Grench another million times :/ And I'm not just saying that because I think I might tear my eyes out if I see the exact same posts made in this thread one more time.

Well my main point was that if we can only get hardware that is not RYF-compatible, then the discussion is pointless, and we there is no need to discuss it further.

If we can (and want to!) get hardware that would be RYF-compatible, then maybe we can discuss further, but that is a very big "if".

So I think it's indeed time to let this thread sink away. We can always revive it later, in the unlikely event that the hardware we end up with turns out to have a FOSS GPU driver after all.

 

[comradekingu]

 

[Grench]

I was wondering why _wb_ is pushing to RYF side that much. Maybe personal interests involved somehow?

 No, no personal interests involved except for some general sympathy for the FSF.

I'm going to have to disagree with you _wb_, I don't think whether or not ED should pursue RYF depends on the hardware the Pandora successor gets. A lot of people are uncomfortable with other aspects of the license and the potential advertising restrictions and nature of what "steer towards" are still leaving a lot of possible problems on the table. That's balanced against the fact that only you and comradekingu really seem to care about it getting RYF in the first place. As far as I'm concerned you generally come off as a reasonable and balanced guy but I really feel like you're pushing too hard on something that plays to your own interests and are not really listening to what other people want. Ultimately this is all up to ED really but his utter lack of participation in this thread should be really telling.

I think you should just accept this and let it go instead of dragging this thread in circles with Grench another million times :/ And I'm not just saying that because I think I might tear my eyes out if I see the exact same posts made in this thread one more time.

 Well my main point was that if we can only get hardware that is not RYF-compatible, then the discussion is pointless, and we there is no need to discuss it further.

If we can (and want to!) get hardware that would be RYF-compatible, then maybe we can discuss further, but that is a very big "if".

So I think it's indeed time to let this thread sink away. We can always revive it later, in the unlikely event that the hardware we end up with turns out to have a FOSS GPU driver after all.

Here's a thought. Which is more important to you? A FOSS device or the FSF's RYF certification?

If your primary concern is that the device be FOSS friendly, then make some noise in the ARM & X86 conversations around SoC choice. The only SoC that I'm aware of that meets our processing needs, power envelope and is FOSS is the Intel Z3000 series (Z3770 in particular).

Intel made the exact SoC that the FOSS community has been dreaming of. Unfortunately, the 'Down with capitalist WInel! ARM is more open!' crowd doesn't seem to understand that it is a truly viable and open option.

We're probably going to get yet another ARM SoC device with crappy or NDA required SoC documentation, proprietary binary blobs, poor SoC manufacturer updates/support and undocumented 'features' again. It'll be a great device because of the dedication of the people who are working on it, but it won't be the 'Open' device you're wanting.

It feels weird to say it, but right now Intel is more open than ARM.

 

[comradekingu]

Its not going to be a x86 processor, for reasons other than the ones you make up on behalf of the people who dont want that.

TI has a 6000 page pdf documentation on the SoC we use, you should read it some time. They released a graphics driver this october.

There is a 2D driver that is FOSS, details and work on it wasnt very clear when i last checked.

 

[commander-beef]

personally i would be happy for x86 cpu for OP. Just one word: HAIKU-OS , the second word is: ReactOS

 

[_wb_]

I am not opposed to x86, and I now that they seem to have the perf/W we need and also good FOSS support, I even think it's a good idea. But ED and notaz and many others prefer ARM for various reasons (backwards compatibility mostly), so I doubt it is going to happen.