"Respects Your Freedom" certification?

[Exophase]

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).

No, please, let's not get people to start making noise. You can stand to make less noise yourself. It doesn't work this way. You won't win over ED by bringing it up in posts every day. All the arguments have been made already, you're just being repetitive (much like with this thread...) You need to learn when to let things go.

 

[sswam]

I just received an answer from the FSF. Here it is

Thanks for sharing it. Looks like bad news to me, much as I expected.

So to get this RYF certification,

1. We can't have any proprietary drivers (GPU / wifi).

2. We can't have a commercial repo unless it's hidden and separate.

3. We can't say "Linux" for the OS, have to say "GNU/Linux".

4. We can't say "Open Source", have to say "Free Software".

my thoughts

1. It would be good to have free drivers, but we can't achieve this for the GPU.

2. I strongly object to hiding the commercial repo.

3. I am happy to mention GNU, but don't much like the phrase "GNU/Linux".

4. I prefer to say "Open Source".

The FSF appears to be taking a very hardline and inflexible approach.

Open Pandora:

1. Has a >99% free software operating system, with GPL Linux kernel, GNU userland, GPL-compatible apps

2. Doesn't ship with or encourage to use any non-free operating system. (Android is also 99% free software.)

3. Most of the software on the repo is GPL compatible open source licensed, maybe 90%?

4. Our repo shows license info, so people can choose to use or avoid non-free software.

Our device is so much more GNU-friendly than a PC (nearly all ship with or recommend Windows).

It is so much more GNU-friendly than a phone or tablet (their app stores are 99% commercial software).

The operating system we use is much more open source even than Android, which typically includes closed-source apps.

Seriously, GNU can't even support Debian? Debian does not steer people towards the non-free repo,

they keep it fully separate so people can easily avoid using any non-free software.

They even have a separate section "contrib", for free software that works with non-free software.

Funnily enough, Debian also excludes some GNU stuff (GFDL doc) into non-free because that GNU license is bad.

 

[_wb_]

I just received an answer from the FSF. Here it is

Thanks for sharing it. Looks like bad news to me, much as I expected.


So to get this RYF certification,


1. We can't have any proprietary drivers (GPU / wifi).


2. We can't have a commercial repo unless it's hidden and separate.


3. We can't say "Linux" for the OS, have to say "GNU/Linux".


4. We can't say "Open Source", have to say "Free Software".

Depends on what you mean by "we". If you mean "we" the official device vendor and the marketing material, yes, those conditions would apply. If you mean "we" the community, of course we can do whatever we want - we can distribute and install whatever proprietary drivers and software we want, we can call the OS QuuxFooBarf or whatever we want, and we can say "open source" however often we want,

It's a bit confusing to use the word "we" without specifying which "we" you're referring to. Especially because the above "we" does not include you and me.

 

[comradekingu]

1. They can be user installed, which begs the question, could the pandora ship bitblt omapdrm drivers, https://github.com/robclark/kernel-omap4/tree/master/drivers/staging/omapdrm and have the user install 3D drivers if need be. Purely speculation on my part, dont know how feasible that is. Does that driver at all work with omap3? There is bitblt functionality going back to the 3530. Also there is this https://github.com/robclark/xf86-video-omap

2. It can be as commercial as it wants, it can be 100% commercial actually. It cant be nonfree.

I dont understand how im steared towards proprietary software in debian, other than maybe the wifi firmware in the installer. But then again you dont know what hardware people have. With a device its different because you can tailor the software to a known install target.

If the problem is the prompt if I, the user, want to enable nonfree repo, then FSF and i differ in the view of what stears me. Maybe they can drop that for RYF and reconsider debian, their guidelines were outdated on the whole. They need a seperate FSF endorsement and FSF RYF, because its not very clear how they differ, only what seems to be the problem.

3. Then again the OS isnt linux, thats the kernel. Usually we say what the name of the OS is, be it in full or short form.

4. You can speak of open source, but it misses the point that free software is making. Its a clarification of said point in speaking as prominently (both are fine) about FOSS.

Agree on the we, but you got it a bit wrong on what the guidelines were. 

One is free to shoot oneself in the foot, but that doesn't benefit the freedom we enjoy as in community.

So you get the four freedoms, but are free to decline.

I think we should ask again what this "steers towards" really is about. How does one go about providing the _option_ of nonfree software and drivers in an impartial manner. Also, is Linux|Gnu ok?

 

[sswam]

This thread is half tediously obvious, and half fantasy.

OBVIOUSLY we would like to have open source GPU drivers, there's a great benefit in that.

But it's very unlikely we'll have decent open GPU drivers in the foreseeable future, or use a SoC that does.


Everything else the FSF demands for RYF certification is impossible for us, i.e. would be opposed by 80% of the community.

    - we value our free speech:

        - to officially recommend commercial software and emulated retro games

        - to say "Linux" and forget to say GNU from time to time

        - to say "Open Source" instead of the ambiguous, misunderstood and plain deceptive "Free

    - and we value our freedom of choice:

        - to use the best hardware for our needs, even if it doesn't have free software drivers yet


WE ARE NOT going to get RYF certification for the Pandora or a successor. Trust me, it will not happen.

The ONLY hardware devices that have this certification, are two wireless adaptors and a 3D printer. No computers. It's a joke.
http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/respects-your-freedom

It might be good for someone to make an RYF certified computer, but that goal is not compatible or even desirable for the Pandora project.

 

[comradekingu]

Your post was halfway ironic, partly obvious and the rest fictitious.

You seem to be incompatible with the openpandora project in that you do not share your reasoning. Last i checked the codec pack was following the guidelines to a tee. User installed, not mandatory, sounds familiar?

Edit: i see you added that middle part so ill answer here:

There is nothing wrong with commercial software, nothing wrong with recommending emulated retro games.

You are free to say linux as much as you want. Why would you also say GNU, are you talking about an OS?

Free as in freedom when it comes to software, it isnt freeware. Use a language other than English if you cant discern the difference.

They are however not at all the same in terms of freedom. Unless its your freedom to be wrong on the last two, i dont understand that you have a point.

FOSS isnt different in that it has a free in there by accident.

Suggested reading http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/10/16/open-core-shareware.html

http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2013/09/23/cyanogenmod.html

 

[sswam]

But the codecs are officially recommended, aren't they? And so they should be. But that's not acceptable to the FSF.

http://openpandora.org/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=199&Itemid=40&lang=en

Official Updates and Firmware

"Here, you can find three essential things for your Pandora: the latest complete firmware image as well as the community codec package."

Under the GNU rules we would not be allowed to officially recommend "community codecs", non-free emulated games, nor DraStic.  We wouldn't be able to officially recommend the commercial games that EvilDragon released on the repo, nor the other commercial games we have there.  We couldn't officially recommend Android, nor running Windows in qemu, nor running commercial games in wine or dosbox. Hell, we wouldn't be able to officially recommend the REPO unless all commercial or non-free software is removed from it.  Only very few of us if any want to do that.

Even the Debian repo, which is by far better than ours with free-software issues, is not considered good enough for the FSF.

What do you think people would prefer - all those things I bolded there, or RYF certification.  Granted we could still have the bolded things, but they would have to be kept secret, not mentioned officially at all.  We'd only be allowed to promote GNU-compliant ideas and products.  That's totally unacceptable, and it makes me want to spit to think that they dare to use the word "free".

To comply with the FSF rules would be like cutting our own balls off, it would hurt Pandora as a platform, and it is not going to happen.

By the way, I'm asking you kindly not to tell me that I "seem to be incompatible with the openpandora project".   :angry:   my inflammatory retort has been restrained for now

 

[comradekingu]

The codec pack isnt essential, so that is false, and it isnt as it should be. Luckily its on the old site, so only people trying to prove a point will find it.

i'm noting the note to obtain legal advice if you are unsure about the codec pack. Curiously nobody even knew if it was legal to put it on the repo when the issue came up a few months ago.

Community codecs are fine. To answer your badly put question with a rhetorical one: why would we recommend nonfree codecs in 2013?

There is nothing wrong with commercial games.

We arent recommending drastic now more-so than on the wiki, which is a factual description of what it is.

We don't recommend android, nor can we. When has running windows anywhere been recommended? If anything it has been vehemently discredited as a terribad OS by this community.

So the debian repo is only better on freedom issues, which have no bearing on actual use? How convenient.

FSF uses a direct port debian repo for their own distro, with only minor modifications. As for what the issue is for RYF in relation to debian, it isn't necessarily the repo as such. Im disputing that since it makes no sense, also suggested to ask them about it.

The pandora repo isnt as futureproof as you make it out to be, as it has packages which cant be upgraded due to the nature of, you guessed it, closed source. The packages that do provide source do so in no unified, checked sane manner. Look to the debian repo or any other to see how its done.

Implying you are speaking on behalf of someone else, you are at least wrong on the part of FSF. No need to keep anything secret, you made that up. If you want to discredit something for not being reasonable, at least hold yourself to a minimum level of seriousness.  FSF uses the word free in the manner in which we cant use Android, have the source to drastic, distribute codecs freely etc.

Your analogy is short of a point, and without merit.  Im glad you shared your reasoning, you are now openly sharing which is a key pillar in the openpandora project.

 

[Grench]

This thread is half tediously obvious, and half fantasy.


OBVIOUSLY we would like to have open source GPU drivers, there's a great benefit in that.


But it's very unlikely we'll have decent open GPU drivers in the foreseeable future, or use a SoC that does.


Everything else the FSF demands for RYF certification is impossible for us, i.e. would be opposed by 80% of the community.


    - we value our free speech:


        - to officially recommend commercial software and emulated retro games


        - to say "Linux" and forget to say GNU from time to time


        - to say "Open Source" instead of the ambiguous, misunderstood and plain deceptive "Free


    - and we value our freedom of choice:


        - to use the best hardware for our needs, even if it doesn't have free software drivers yet


WE ARE NOT going to get RYF certification for the Pandora or a successor. Trust me, it will not happen.


The ONLY hardware devices that have this certification, are two wireless adaptors and a 3D printer. No computers. It's a joke.

http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/respects-your-freedom


It might be good for someone to make an RYF certified computer, but that goal is not compatible or even desirable for the Pandora project.

But the codecs are officially recommended, aren't they? And so they should be. But that's not acceptable to the FSF.

http://openpandora.org/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=199&Itemid=40&lang=en

Official Updates and Firmware

"Here, you can find three essential things for your Pandora: the latest complete firmware image as well as the community codec package."


Under the GNU rules we would not be allowed to officially recommend "community codecs", non-free emulated games, nor DraStic.  We wouldn't be able to officially recommend the commercial games that EvilDragon released on the repo, nor the other commercial games we have there.  We couldn't officially recommend Android, nor running Windows in qemu, nor running commercial games in wine or dosbox. Hell, we wouldn't be able to officially recommend the REPO unless all commercial or non-free software is removed from it.  Only very few of us if any want to do that.


Even the Debian repo, which is by far better than ours with free-software issues, is not considered good enough for the FSF.


What do you think people would prefer - all those things I bolded there, or RYF certification.  Granted we could still have the bolded things, but they would have to be kept secret, not mentioned officially at all.  We'd only be allowed to promote GNU-compliant ideas and products.  That's totally unacceptable, and it makes me want to spit to think that they dare to use the word "free".


To comply with the FSF rules would be like cutting our own balls off, it would hurt Pandora as a platform, and it is not going to happen.


By the way, I'm asking you kindly not to tell me that I "seem to be incompatible with the openpandora project".   :angry:   my inflammatory retort has been restrained for now

You 'get it' 100%.


FOSS is good and nice. The more the better.


However, the FSF's RYF certification is entirely not worth the sacrifices of real freedoms.

 

[comradekingu]

For reasons? 

You quoted sswams posts btw.

 

[comradekingu]

So sswam made an excellent point on irc in that instead of a certified or not, it should be a rating system, that also makes it easier to comply, and it differentiates the ones who try and fail from the ones who really activly fail.

Ships only free software. kernelspace, userspace

user replacable parts, replacement parts available
User servicable parts. no proprietary connectors or screws. Can be disassembled with regular tools with ease.
documentation available, do what you want
education stresses the issue that free is better than open in sense of freedom. Helps you hack.
open hardware, bill of materials, schematics, gerber files available
 

Any other important factors?

These all focus on the positive sides, rather than "no DRM" "no tracking" "no spying" which is questioning a user that might not even expect it, triggering suspicion.

I think it would do alot better in marketing and with marketeers if those i mention above were the rationale, rather than the scare tactic. Sounds much like a device that i want rather than the powers to be did not opt in on spying on me or restricting me artificially. Making the RYF kinda moot in that it was RYF to begin with.

To really respect freedom you must put some effort in to push it.

Maybe we can feedback this to the fsf?

 

[sswam]

Without wanting to diss my own idea, the FSF is not a bunch of morons.

If they wanted to do this "RYF scoring", they would have done it already.

Still, the RYF certification as it is seems to be a great big pile of fail, it can only get better.

So maybe _wb_ could suggest it to them, as he's already established a line of communication.

I anticipate the FSF would reject this along the lines of "unfortunately, we are infallible and cannot consider your requests"

 

@comradekingu about your bold "factors" above - are they original ideas, or does the FSF already consider those points?

I don't think we should ask them to change their criteria, but to give a score instead of "yes" or "no" (where >99.99% gets "no").

Your factors are good, could be useful if we would somehow do our own hardware certification!

Maybe we could grade ourselves on some sensible criteria and see how the Pandora would score, compared to certain other products.

We could try with a few different sets of criteria: one for the FSF's priorities, and one for the community's priorities

(which I guess we can ascertain by polling).

 

[comradekingu]

As a member i beg to differ, the FSF public outreach is in my view very moronic in that its too negative, and as the case may be for the RYF, hard to understand.

The bold above is my view on what the key elements of the RYF is (freedom), not about what it isnt, or shouldnt be, (someone taking it away)

I dont know about the yes or no, that sounds like a enhancement upon the system i described. In my view the pandora 1 checks out on whole areas and should have some credit for that.

Certifying oneself makes little sense unless we also mention the parts that arent so great, like the wifi driver and gfx.

But in doing so, are the points above all that is, or is it somehow lacking something?

Could we include "the freedom to breathe clean air" and bring in environmental factors aswell?

 

[sebt3]

 

[Klumpen]

WTFPL – Do What the Fuck You Want to Public License

 

[Wally]

Locking for good measures. #whyressurrecta2+yearoldthread?

 

[Christoph.Krn]

Locking for good measures. #whyressurrecta2+yearoldthread?

Why not, if it's directly targeted at the topic? WAY better than creating a new topic for it.

Locking this would make no sense at all.

 

[Klumpen]

Why not, if it's directly targeted at the topic? WAY better than creating a new topic for it.

Locking this would make no sense at all.

I'm always confused by mods actually wanting to have boards cluttered with more threads these days.
Wasn't it the other way round? "Look for existing threads before posting a new one"?

 

[FBnil]

As a Christian, I object to that license. It sounds too much like "Do what thy wilst".

 

[ible]

wasn't C0 designed for this sort of thing?