"Respects Your Freedom" certification?

[comradekingu]

Grench
you are confusing proprietary with paid, there is not really a link there, a gratis proprietary program is freeware.

Free (as  in freedom) software does not mean gratis, it can be either.

 

[ZXDunny]

You are free to customize your GRUB bootloader menu entries, but the default name that Debian calls itself - not just in the bootloader but also anywhere else - is definitely "Debian GNU/Linux" (at least if you're using the Linux kernel, otherwise it is called Debian GNU/<something else>).

Of course if you want to change your boot menu to say "ZXDunnyOS 3.14" instead of the default name, you are free to do so. But don't insist that that should be the proper name for the distro, just because "it says so on my GRUB screen".

I'd grab a screenshot if I could. It's Debian Potato unmodified running on a 486 DX2 50MHz, and doesn't say "GNU" anywhere. Just "Linux".

D.

 

[WizardStan]

means they fail.

Fail at what?

Debian is still forbidden

Forbidden from what?

their free offering isn't free enough.

Free enough for what?

Not only then would they not give Debian or Redhat their 'blessing' for providing a fully functional free version of their OS product, they would go the step further of failing any product that even used the free-only version of that OS.

Are you suggesting that if a theoretical P2 with absolutely no non-free software included or required to function were to be built using the entirely free version of Debian that you believe they would deny RYF certification simply because Debian is not "totally free" by the FSF's standards because it hosts non-free software on its servers?

 

[Grench]

means they fail.

Fail at what?

Debian is still forbidden

Forbidden from what?

their free offering isn't free enough.

Free enough for what?

Not only then would they not give Debian or Redhat their 'blessing' for providing a fully functional free version of their OS product, they would go the step further of failing any product that even used the free-only version of that OS.

Are you suggesting that if a theoretical P2 with absolutely no non-free software included or required to function were to be built using the entirely free version of Debian that you believe they would deny RYF certification simply because Debian is not "totally free" by the FSF's standards because it hosts non-free software on its servers?

Exactly.  The P2, with the absolutely free Debian, would likely fail because of inclusion of the non RYF certified Debian software used on it.  The P2 would be tainted.  It doesn't have to make sense.  These people are religious fanatics.  They believe in guilt by association.

Is making the Pandora successor as open and free as possible a worthy goal?  Yes.

Is pursuing FSF & RYF certification worthwhile?  Not in the slightest.

 

[TrashyMG]

Is making the Pandora successor as open and free as possible a worthy goal?  Yes.

Is pursuing FSF & RYF certification worthwhile?  Not in the slightest.

^ this is my exact feeling on this situation.

 

[WizardStan]

Exactly.  The P2, with the absolutely free Debian, would likely fail because of inclusion of the non RYF certified Debian software used on it.

What part of the requirements makes you think that? Because my reading of the requirements doesn't make me think that at all. Certain phrases used makes me absolutely confident that what you are suggesting is not the case at all. Particularly this paragraph:

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

Certification is not dismissed if you host or make available non-free programs, it is only dismissed if you require, suggest, or simply steer them towards those free programs.

Is pursuing FSF & RYF certification worthwhile?

Absolutely. It is a fact that we have had trouble with the GPU driver. A lot of the problems could have been avoided if we'd just been able to read and modify the drivers. Keeping the certification in mind as a desire will help remind us of the importance of a free and open driver.BUT just because it's something worth pursuing does not mean it will always be. You are allowed to have multiple goals. As you get closer to those goals you might find that some of them conflict with each other. If that happens you are totally within your right to modify or even completely discard any goals that no longer fit your criteria. If we find trying to stick with the RYF certification makes us too limited in the hardware we can use or the software it ships with then you thank it for the guidance to that point and kick it out the door.

 

[comradekingu]

I don't understand the willingness to remove oneself from the intents of the certification in that one agrees with the ends, but not the motives.

Either the FSF is justified for persuing free hardware, and you agree to the freedom of such endavour, or they arent, and you are against it, cant be both. You dont have to align with your own view of FSF to see the benefit in a certification.

If you want to question the certification, make it about the certification, not about FSF. That is an ad hominem attack, and a very spurious one at that.

Do you know how much work goes into checking that the software in the main repo is actually free? How much is done to fix things so that everything is smooth sailing? That is the real product of free software. Show at least some gratitude. This server we are on now uses Debian, and its made better by constant peer review. To check that everything aligns itself with the free as in freedom. And if nobody defined that we wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on to begin with.

The latest debacle is this btw. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQ0MTY

 

[Grench]

Either the FSF is justified for persuing free hardware, and you agree to the freedom of such endavour, or they arent, and you are against it, cant be both. You dont have to align with your own view of FSF to see the benefit in a certification.

"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." G. W. Bush 2001

Religious fanatics always address the world as us vs them - you're with us or you're some sort of sub-human or evil.

You really can't understand why we would want to endeavor towards a free system but -not- want to surrender control over the project to a third party's whim (FSF)?  The difference is idealism vs. fanaticism.

I can agree with the direction of their goal (freedom) without endorsing their methodology (borderline blackmail).

Do you know how much work goes into checking that the software in the main repo is actually free? How much is done to fix things so that everything is smooth sailing? That is the real product of free software. Show at least some gratitude. This server we are on now uses Debian, and its made better by constant peer review. To check that everything aligns itself with the free as in freedom. And if nobody defined that we wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on to begin with.

The latest debacle is this btw. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQ0MTY

And it is wonderful that they do.  I appreciate it - I use Debian derived software regularly (Mint).

You don't see it as more than a bit peculiar that the free software that you're using in your example (Debian) doesn't meet the FSF requirements due to it's repository relationships with other software?  Guilt by association.  Nifty.

This is getting quite silly.

 

[moxie]

The latest debacle is this btw. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQ0MTY

If I read that correctly, it is indeed a debacle. However, I'm not sure that I'd agree with you on who was in the wrong.

The idea that someone added the line "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." to the license, and that that rather spurious line magically turned the JSON module into NON-FREE software that must be PURGED from all right-thinking repositories speaks volumes. This is why I completely agree with Grench and TrashyMG.

 

[ghostpatch]

they are way too serious. Its such a narrow minded response

Wasn't a f****n licence issue with the Firefox icon the reason for the removal of Firefox and the Iceweasel fork (never being up to date)? Its insane!

Nothing against those people (FSF etc.), they are awesome but a certification would bind us to a die hard ideologie which I simply don't feel comfortable with

 

[WizardStan]

must be PURGED from all right-thinking repositories speaks volumes.

It doesn't need to purged from right-thinking repositories, it needed to be removed from repositories that claim to be entirely free by the FSF's definition of free and put into one which does not have that definition. You'll note that the article says it is simply one command away from being re-installed, it's not like it was removed and impossible to retrieve. It's a triviality on the users end.I have a box. I label the box "oranges" and put all my oranges into it. I have another box which I've labelled "lemons", putting all my lemons into it. Over time, I realize one of the oranges in the orange box is in fact a lemon! Am I really so remiss in moving that orange from the box labelled oranges into the one labelled lemons? Have I really infringed upon the lemon's freedom to exist by moving it from the orange's box? Is it really so wrong that both boxes sit on the same table and I, for reasons I don't need to disclose, want to keep oranges in the orange box and lemons in the lemon box?

 

[WizardStan]

certification would bind us to a die hard ideologie

Oh for fuck sakes. No it wouldn't!The certification is not a legally binding contract. We can work towards it and at any time we so choose drop everything and change direction. If we don't get it and simply use it as a reminder that free and open drivers are a good thing then we have no problem. If we do get it and later discover that the closed drivers are way better and we want to ship with those we can discard the certification and install the closed drivers. There is no binding, everything is at every point our choice (or rather ED's choice), free to pursue for as long as relevant and then ignore or receive and drop whenever it becomes convenient.

 

[ghostpatch]

The certification is not a legally binding contract.

yes I know. My apologies for not making this clear. What I ment was, it binds us as long as we want to keep it

I have a box. I label the box "oranges" and put all my oranges into it. I have another box which I've labelled "lemons", putting all my lemons into it. Over time, I realize one of the oranges in the orange box is in fact a lemon! Am I really so remiss in moving that orange from the box labelled oranges into the one labelled lemons? Have I really infringed upon the lemon's freedom to exist by moving it from the orange's box? Is it really so wrong that both boxes sit on the same table and I, for reasons I don't need to disclose, want to keep oranges in the orange box and lemons in the lemon box?

Having different repos makes sense, stabel, testing, ustabel and so on. However to me the openpandora repo looks/feels more like the Play Store, App Store or the Ubuntu Software Center. People (especially those unfamiliar with Linux) expect everything to be in one place. Why wouldn't it be?

There are pletnty of other analogies for "oranges" and "lemons" and they are not so positive...

 

[WizardStan]

What I ment was, it binds us as long as we want to keep it

Which is the same as saying it doesn't bind us at all, since we can simply choose to ignore it whenever we so desire.

Having different repos makes sense, stabel, testing, ustabel and so on. However to me the openpandora repo looks/feels more like the Play Store, App Store or the Ubuntu Software Center. People (especially those unfamiliar with Linux) expect everything to be in one place. Why wouldn't it be?

Exactly, why wouldn't it be? There is nothing that says it can't. In the analogy the Pandora's repo is just a box labelled "fruit". And you know what, that label was written on a white board with dry erase marker, we can change it when we want. One of the goals of the Pandora project was that everything be easily available, that installing stuff could be as simple as downloading something from Google or Apple.Debian set out a different set of goals and labelled their "boxes" accordingly. Their intentions necessitate that free and non-free be separate. They set a specific course, they follow that course as closely as they can, just as the Pandora project follows its course as closely as it can. If something gets into their free repository that doesn't match the definition of what should be in that repository then why is it wrong that it be removed from there and put into the repository which it does match the definition of? It is still as accessible to install, it's just in a different place. The lemon is in the lemon box, if you want it you need to look a little to your right.

 

[Binky]

it doesn't bind us at all,

Losing FSF-Free certification wouldn't look good...

 

[moxie]

must be PURGED from all right-thinking repositories speaks volumes.

It doesn't need to purged from right-thinking repositories, it needed to be removed from repositories that claim to be entirely free by the FSF's definition of free and put into one which does not have that definition. You'll note that the article says it is simply one command away from being re-installed, it's not like it was removed and impossible to retrieve. It's a triviality on the users end.

Yes, I know. That is not the absurdity I'm speaking of. The absurdity is that the standards for what constitutes a FSF-pure license are so slim that something like this would cause any upset at all. And no, for the end user it is no problem, but for the Debian maintainers who wants to try to keep to "Free-as-in-FSF", there will be a scramble to find a substitute and loads of extra work to be able to keep their repo in the Right (that is, FSF-pure). For no real practical gain except that someone got their knickers in a twist over a sentence.

I can certainly understand why Debian would want to keep the "Proper Free According To The Pop...I mean RMS" status, because as several people has pointed out: The news that you've lost the right to use a certification or name or whatever isn't positive, and generally when such news are reported, the line will be "Debian maintainers slack off - main repos no longer free", not "Piddly detail gets FSF knickers in twist - Debian maintainers finally says 'Eh, f*ck it'".

So: No, it is not a problem for users. It does become a problems for maintainers, and (in our case) hardware developers. I fully agree that a future pandora should strive to fulfill the certification standards. I'm quite sceptical to actually apply for said certification, though.

 

[moxie]

And for the fruit analogy, I find a close parallell to the European Unions fruit standards, which regulated (or used to regulate) what fruit should look like in order to be able to be sold as such. That is: If your banana is too short, too long, or doesn't have a curve that bends just inbetween the allowed span of Proper Degrees of Banana Curvature, then I'm sorry, but you can't legally call that a banana.

 

[sebt3]

And for the fruit analogy, I find a close parallell to the European Unions fruit standards, which regulated (or used to regulate) what fruit should look like in order to be able to be sold as such. That is: If your banana is too short, too long, or doesn't have a curve that bends just inbetween the allowed span of Proper Degrees of Banana Curvature, then I'm sorry, but you can't legally call that a banana.

But that's the whole point of the european parlement. that's the *large* majority of their work... speak about something usefull...
EDIT: more on the topic, this whole discution only point out that while we all agree that FSF goal are nice and all, the extremism shown by the FSF made them lose any credibility...

 

[xiongxioi]

And for the fruit analogy, I find a close parallell to the European Unions fruit standards, which regulated (or used to regulate) what fruit should look like in order to be able to be sold as such. That is: If your banana is too short, too long, or doesn't have a curve that bends just inbetween the allowed span of Proper Degrees of Banana Curvature, then I'm sorry, but you can't legally call that a banana.

That sounds like what would happen if some German dictator was a banana, lol. Have to make this joke, sorry.

 

[xiongxioi]

Losing FSF-Free certification wouldn't look good...

So, Binky, the question then comes down to how the how the disqualify process works.

Will it be three strikes, and after the third your certification is canceled for a few years, or do they have the right to take it away from you without any proper communication?

If it is the former, then ED sure can arrange a deal with them, we keep our end of the promise, and they make it certain that they won't screw us over in the future on something small.