"Respects Your Freedom" certification?

[_jr_]

This thread has become seriously annoying. Why do you argue with people that obviously either can't read or just like to spread FUD?


Unfortunately the GPL protects the rights of even the likes of Grench

 

[moxie]

I have to say I'm with those saying to aim to make the hardware match the certification,  but not actually apply for it.  

I think it makes a lot of sense to make and distribute the product with only free software, and even to provide pointers to free alternatives to non-free software where possible.   However  part of the requirements for the certification restrict the freedom of the seller to recommend non-free software if they feel it worthwhile without losing the certification.  This is not a freedom I'd be willing to give up.

- Neelix

OK, let's break things down a bit for clarity.

• The hardware should be as Free as possible (meaning we avoid binary blob stuff if possible): I think everyone is in favor of this.
• The software that gets shipped with the hardware should be 100% Free: I think most people are in favor of this too; this is what we already do with the current Pandora except for those one or two blobs
• The software that the hardware vendor "recommends for use in conjunction with the product, or steers users towards installation in the product.": I think it is crucial to think about how this phrase should be interpreted; this is one of the questions that would need to be answered by the FSF before we can seriously consider applying for the certification.

If having something on our repo server means ED "recommends" the software on it, or "steers users towards installation", then I think most people here would consider that a too strong limitation to impose upon ourselves. If making YouTube videos showing footage of non-free software running on the Pandora successor also counts as a "recommendation", then I suspect that most people here would consider that to be too much of a restriction too.

Clearly there is some kind of spectrum of what constitutes a "recommendation", and it would be necessary to make it much more clear-cut where to draw the line. We would have to contact the FSF to discuss this line before applying for the certification.

[...]

So given the above, I think it should be possible to establish definitions of "recommends", "endorses", and "steers towards" that are acceptable both to us and to the FSF.

Well put. 

 

[ghostpatch]

Another analogy: vegetarians. Many people will agree that the current rate of meat consumption is ecologically unsustainable and unhealthy (non-free software has issues), some people choose to eat less meat for that reason (some people use some free software), and a few become 100% vegetarians (a few people use only free software). FSF endorsement is like a certified food label that says "100% vegetarian".

In this analogy a regular Linux user would be a vegitarian (still using some non free stuff like Steam, codecs etc.). A FSF guy would be more like a vegan.

- Nobody is having anything against the FSF. Its a very good and respected organisation!

- Everyone agees to aim for FOSS (drivers/shiped software) and most seem to be willing to sacrifice performance, including me

my point is:

- no software should have an advantage or disadvatige just because of the license its using! We could make it so that every program needs to state its licence on the pandora repo download page?

 

[WizardStan]

In this analogy a regular Linux user would be a vegitarian (still using some non free stuff like Steam, codecs etc.). A FSF guy would be more like a vegan.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/tFBeeBSIH5Q?feature=oembed

 

[comradekingu]

That would be the non-working extention to the comparison that didnt make all that much sense (except for the problematic side of things.)

I'm very much for stating the license of things on the repo and having the source available in the same way on every file.

 

[F_Slim]

Not being able to advertise that it can run Android or Ubuntu (not that I personally need to have either) would be a huge disadvantage. And it looks like an Android-sticker on the box is ok?

So I would just vote for using the best option (freedom/performance/cost etc.) and not apply for the certificate.

Having free (free) software marked in the repo makes sense, but in the end it all depends on the uploader to set the required flag then (and some don't even have proper descriptions of what it is). Also this license business is so confusing that I wouldn't know if its FREE or not and rather not touch that flag at all ...others may think something is FREE but it's actually not and set it wrong ... I doubt that it will work out as intended.

 

[comradekingu]

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.

Not agreeing with me is not a good reason to side with someone else. Besides i didnt share my view as to who i think is wrong. If its of any interest i think google is in the wrong for taking down his hosting, and i think as long as it isnt valid in a court it isnt viable to begin with and thus void. That is to say maybe then it should not warrant a place in the license. But i give the creator a well-played here. When people are starting to talk about forking his effort or redoing it i think its time to remove it, but he is 100% in his right to put anything he wishes in there. I knew about it a long time ago, and only now is it a problem of sorts.

I think the restriction isnt technically making it non-free, just incompatible. I think the problem is interpreting intent, in this case the authors definition of good and evil. But if you want to be strict about it it is a limitation on freedom of usage, of which evil is a part. I guess the middleground isnt covered either, with only good being mentioned.

I remember a mint dev posted on the releaselog a few years ago that he "wished"? that no israelis used the release because of the situation with the Palestinians. Then it starts to get a bit more touchy.

 

[_wb_]

Not being able to advertise that it can run Android or Ubuntu (not that I personally need to have either) would be a huge disadvantage. And it looks like an Android-sticker on the box is ok?


So I would just vote for using the best option (freedom/performance/cost etc.) and not apply for the certificate.

Why do I need to keep repeating this? The certification would not prevent anyone from advertising that the hardware can run Android, Ubuntu, Windows 8, MacOS, whatever. It only disallows giving the impression that proprietary software  is somehow required to use the hardware - for example a sticker "Made for Mac" or a statement like "The OpenPandora2 Team recommends Microsoft Windows 8" would not be allowed.

Having free (free) software marked in the repo makes sense, but in the end it all depends on the uploader to set the required flag then (and some don't even have proper descriptions of what it is). Also this license business is so confusing that I wouldn't know if its FREE or not and rather not touch that flag at all ...others may think something is FREE but it's actually not and set it wrong ... I doubt that it will work out as intended.

If you're uploading something to the repo, you better know what license it is using. Otherwise you could very well be illegally distributing something.

 

[_jr_]

While licensing issues are not really on topic, because it is mostly irrelevant to the question whether seeking certification would be a good idea, I want to clear some of the confusion.

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

I think the restriction isnt technically making it non-free, just incompatible.

No, the additional restriction is incompatible with the basic freedom to use software for any purpose. That's what free software is about.

I think the problem is interpreting intent, in this case the authors definition of good and evil.

No, that is a problem, but not *the* problem.

But if you want to be strict about it it is a limitation on freedom of usage, of which evil is a part.

Yes! It is simply that additional restrictions are explicitly forbidden by the GPL in order to protetct the freedom of the user. Even GPLv3 is incompatible to GPLv2. And that is a good thing!

Even though I'm rather feeling like it, I'm not allowed to exclude Grench, Moxy, and TrashyMG from using my port on the repo. And to repeat, that is a good thing!


Anybody failing to see that, needs to seriously widen his/her horizon. Reading the relevant FAQs could be a good start.


Nobody claims it's perfect (that would require IP laws themselves to change), but copyleft does work because the people behind it know pretty well what they are doing. And they do it exclusively to benefit the users, which actually does work, too. They are also doing it for quite some time. As mentioned in another thread times have changed and additional issues have surfaced, but that doesn't invalidate anything. Quite to the contrary.


Right now I'm really happy that I donate to the FSF directly and not the preorder fund and that the free projects I spent some serious time on (unlike the simple PySolFC port on the repo) are so obscure and developer centered.

 

[Rockthesmurf]

If we can have all open drivers for the same price and the same performance, that sounds good! Always nice to have options. At the same time, 99% of the Pandora is open, and there is probably less than 0.1% of users that actually do any tinkering with kernels, drivers, etc. Based on this, I feel that if the key contributors (at the lower level) have strong preferences, their voice should have some weight against the noise from others who have strong opinions but no track record of contribution to back them up. Of course I am not suggesting people get ignored who haven't contributed so far, but clearly some people help shape the success/failure of the Pandora much more heavily than others.

With regards to any of this thread having any impact on business/sales, I think this is a bit laughable. Will any new users care? Maybe 0, maybe 1000? No one knows. Would any users be put off? Maybe 0, maybe 1000? No one knows. The Pandora is already very open, so users looking for open will probably already find the Pandora acceptable, if there are any users that really care about this final push, I personal feel they would join the forum and push/ask about this. Right now we are just speculating about potential users.

I also have some agreement with ZXDunny, not sure if it was said as a joke, but I have some worry about any official free/open movement, as there is already examples on this board of users from this camp being downright rude, ignorant and offensive. It isn't fair to judge a 'movement' based on a potentially small number of users, however my honest opinion is that this is the sort of response I see regularly from Linux/open/free supporters. It does frustrate me that some people can't just live and let live; if you want to support open/free then make open/free software and only download open/free software. But I feel it is wrong to attempt to stop other people doing what they want; it is 100% fine to educate people, starting a thread 'Some advantages of FOSS', let users form their own opinion, but attempting to exclude/alienate/insult/belittle/etc. in order to push your opinion is just flat out not acceptable if you ask me.

If a Pandora successor is released that allows commercial, closed, software from the main repo, and discussion of said software on the main forum, I will most likely support it. If anything is done to actively push users away from this software I will most likely not support the project. If I felt that a strong movement was being created to outcast closed/paid software I guess I might even actively attempt to derail the project (I'm sure this wouldn't happen).

 

[_wb_]

If a Pandora successor is released that allows commercial, closed, software from the main repo, and discussion of said software on the main forum, I will most likely support it. If anything is done to actively push users away from this software I will most likely not support the project. If I felt that a strong movement was being created to outcast closed/paid software I guess I might even actively attempt to derail the project (I'm sure this wouldn't happen).

I don't think anyone is proposing to forbid discussion of non-free software or to exclude it from the community repo, so don't worry. I don't like your threatening tone though.

However, I don't agree with people who say that in order for the project to be successful, we have to aim to get more non-free commercial software on the repo, as if Free software is by definition of inferior quality and not suitable for "serious" applications or for "real" gaming. As if the price tag or restrictive license is a quality label by itself.

So I don't think we should "outcast" or "push away" non-free software, but I do think that if we want to spend community time, effort and money, then in my opinion it would be better used to promote and encourage the use and development of Free software.

 

[Rockthesmurf]

@_wb_ I don't intend to have a threatening tone (so please don't read it in this way). Some users want to get rid of all closed/paid software (I'm not saying you are necessarily in this bracket), I on the other hand want to get rid anything that supports this notion. For me true freedom is being able to do whatever you like (within the law, etc.) and give the end user freedom to choose whatever software they like.

With regards to how to make the next handheld more successful, I am not sure I'd want to stick my head out any make judgement either way. I have already given a detailed response as to why Visual Studio is better than any free/open alternatives for the purpose which I use it. I didn't feel anyone provided anything that showed otherwise, so in this case, I would 100% say the non-free version is the best. There is never going to be 100% agreement for things like this, some people like playing text adventures which took some guy in his basement a weekend to make. Others like to play games that took a team of 200 people, 3 years of development time to make. Currently I'm not sure quite how the business model works for making the 200 man team work for 3 years on a game, which is then made fully free and open source. So based on this, people that want these games again will say non-free is the best.

So, based on this, your views that effort and money should be used to push free software I do not agree with. I think effort/money should be used to push good software, and license should not come into it. In loads of cases there is great free/open software, why bother paying if there is a free version? I have no problem with that. But if in a specific case there is only a paid version, why shouldn't effort/money also go into this? I feel it should be judged on a case by case basis, and we shouldn't be using these blanket concepts that free/open is better (or conversely paid/closed is better).

 

[sebt3]

If I felt that a strong movement was being created to outcast closed/paid software I guess I might even actively attempt to derail the project (I'm sure this wouldn't happen).

That would put Exophase out too. If Exo is out of the project I guess there are more customers to loose than to gain No need to state that part.

I used to be a free-software activist. Yet, my last meeting with RMS (refuse to aknowledge that there arent enough (paid) work on freesoftware to allow every freesoftware enthousist to eat this way), the GPLv3 (incompatible with previous version, wtf?) and the zealotness of many activist (like sonme here but some are even worst) put me out. Fanatism isnt my cup of tea. While I agree on many ideas, I feel like the FSF have gone too far to keep revelance (like debian not free enough, wtf?).

On the other side of the coin, if the sgx drivers were opensources, we would had a few fixes for the known bugs written, and many improvement could have been coined in superzaxxon too. So having floss drivers is a very nice feature. IMHO, that should be a target.

Getting the RYF sticker, doesnt represent a risk imho by itself and might even sound nice to me. My only fear is that it will bring more and more FSF fanatist here, and IMHO we already have enough of these here. I wouldnt be too happy to see one of those having words with say Exo because his work isnt free enough... And I bet a majority of pandora user will agree with me here.

Getting a free-distrib sticker (a-la gnusense) is completly nuts and wasnt the question (wb suggestion) anyway...

 

[Rockthesmurf]

@sebt3 I'm in full agreement. I also acknowledge Exo has a contribution worth probably 100x of mine too, I didn't want to use someone else as an example though, as I don't want to speak on their behalf.


Also, maybe 'derail' is the wrong word, too strong, more like I'd put my opinion forward publicly along the lines of 'The reasons I no longer support the Pandora line, and also discourage other users from supporting the line are: XYZ'. Again, I am always in favour of people putting forward their views/opinions (as long as they are how they perceive facts, rather than telling lies) so others can form their own opinion. I've said before I have much respect for many people here, including people that have very different views to me; I'm cool with that, I have many good friends who have opinions that don't align with my own. I am not here to start personal arguments with anyone. So please just take my post as me registering my interest in keeping the next handhelds community/repo/etc. open for all types of software licensing (nothing more, nothing less).

 

[F_Slim]

Not being able to advertise that it can run Android or Ubuntu (not that I personally need to have either) would be a huge disadvantage. And it looks like an Android-sticker on the box is ok?


So I would just vote for using the best option (freedom/performance/cost etc.) and not apply for the certificate.

Why do I need to keep repeating this? The certification would not prevent anyone from advertising that the hardware can run Android, Ubuntu, Windows 8, MacOS, whatever.

Well, you qutoed this yourself:

Their guidelines also say:

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,

 

[Binky]

This forum's handling of quotes really isn't very good, is it?  ^_^

 

[_wb_]

It isn't.  Too bad the forum software is proprietary, so we can't fix those problems ourselves

Anyway, I don't think we have to fear an invasion of FSF "fanatics". In the worst, there will be some more work for the forum mods. Nothing compared to the amount of mod overtime that would be needed if the P2 were done with Craig on board though

 

[Grench]

It isn't.  Too bad the forum software is proprietary, so we can't fix those problems ourselves

Too bad the free alternative is so full of bugs and back doors that it's continuously hacked and overrun by spam bots.

Good thing we don't have to treat them equally and supply a free alternative forum.

 

[_wb_]

It isn't.  Too bad the forum software is proprietary, so we can't fix those problems ourselves

Too bad the free alternative is so full of bugs and back doors that it's continuously hacked and overrun by spam bots.

Good thing we don't have to treat them equally and supply a free alternative forum.

This forum also gets its share of spam bots. Good thing we have a team of mods who throw them out.

 

[comradekingu]

There are bad apples among the good ones with all apples. What makes an apple good is a a fruit-metric just as much as what makes it bad.

Debian not being free enough for for example gnewsense isn't really all there is too it. They help out a lot with what they deem to be important, in turn making Debian what it is, and a better one at that.

I think the pragmatic approach here is where the path lies. If there aren't any show-stoppers for a certification, or what would amount to one, at least the potential customers will be more than 0, rather than take away anything. The "this is your hardware" aspect applies also to those who wouldn't find out about a certification state on their own. And i think its a good entry-point into explaining why _if_ people care to listen.

What people don't really take into consideration here is that the "freedom" to run proprietary software and advertise it as such isn't straight-forward.

We all saw what happened to that steam x86 "console" that claimed certification with steam before the whole thing was finalized. Lo and behold it wasn't supported by valve in the end. And if one ships with Android, one gets sued by Microsoft. I dare you to name me any single supplier who doesn't pay that extortion tax.