"Respects Your Freedom" certification?


Is this really an issue ? The OP core team has barely enough resources to maintain one OS, right ?

Would it not be sufficient to ship a "P2" with Linux pre-installed and let users optionally install Android/Cyanogen (with closed SW) later on ?

I'm quite confident that the FSF would take into account that this is a small-scale project with not a lot of money to spare. It can probably be negotiated that we can get the certification for free (as in beer) or at least very cheaply.
TBH, I am quite confident about that, too.

p.s.: I concur with everyone who thinks that the "GNU/Linux" wording requirement is a bit over-the-top. It makes sense to call the GNU version of "make" "GNU make" so it is not confused with other "make" variants out there. But there is only one Linux and it uses a GNU license so no confusion there. People could get the idea that this is supposed to mean that Linux is the kernel and GNU the rest but that's not necessarily true and has been discussed before in this thread. I hope the FSF will change this requirement at some point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Autonomy - all marketing and packaging materials would need to be vetted by the FSF.

Speech - all references to the certified product must promote and include exact phrases approved by the FSF.

Money - The FSF certification is not free.  Membership dues and penalty fund?

Openness - The FSF works on and through closed/private contracts & licenses.
in that case a small project like OP should not care for the RYF.

EDIT: although, it's just "$120.00 per year". Is this tax-deductible?

EDIT#2: In the USA, it is.

EDIT#3: From what I understand, in Europe, too.

Let's be realistic here. Getting our little niche device approved by Google or Microsoft is going to be way more trouble than getting FSF approval
Grench's arguments convinced me. I initially thought that the RYF certificate was truly free with not so many strings attached.

EDIT#4: Has anyone here actually contacted the FSF about the details, e.g. "exact phrases approved by the FSF" ?
Im sure someone will foot the bill, im in for 20$

Then again his arguments about the FSF and RYF are largely made up. You should read it yourself. Interestingly enough, he went full circle and argued that  the terms would be contrary to his solution, which would actually be covered. Sans the windows drivers obviously, but why would you ship windows drivers without an OS..?

Ironically, you cant actually ship the playstore, unless you license Android officially. And its actually google that limits the distribution of gapps per default. F-droid, no problem.

An x86_64 portable solution is not viable in comparison, not because the drivers arent good.

Also, exo, Linux/gnu sounds good, cant deal with backslash though. How about Linux|Gnu. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rallying? An excellent idea! We could hold a rally car race, with GNU fanatics in one car and sensible folks in another. Who would win? Would the GNU sandals+socks attire make clutch work difficult? What sort of car would they drive? I bet it would be one in the shape of a Penguin - one that does what a real rally car does, but is somehow inferior in quality, like someone saw a non-GNU rally car and thought "we need to have a rally car like that, but completely open!" and to that end it probably would have no windows in it.
still makes me giggle like a school girl. So true 10 years ago.

ZXDunny wins this thread :)

p.s.: and in case you do not get it: Microsoft is one of the top 20 contributors to Linux nowadays. I just hope that we will see the day when they finally focus on what they do best -- providing a polished UI "experience" -- with a truly free OS as its foundation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread has taught me that mentioning something as a device in an illustration or analogy is an invitation to hear everyone's complete ideological position on that thing.
you forgot to say "ad nauseam"

Microsoft is one of the top 20 contributors to Linux nowadays.
No, they really aren't. They were a top 20 contributor of new code for one year only, and only so that people can run Linux VMs better under Windows Server, and they only open sourced it because of obligation under the GPL, and frankly we could very well do without their dumb hyper-v driver.


As for the name of our operating system, though I am reluctant to add yet more to this tedious discussion, we should call the Pandora OS "SuperZaxxon" or something similar, and mention in the blurb that it runs a GNU userland, on Linux kernel, with X window system. We are not going to call it "SuperZaxxon Linux", so the GNU's demands to call it "SuperZaxxon GNU/Linux" would not apply. Am I wrong or am I right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
also, what about SuperZaxxon GNU8===>Linux ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Im sure someone will foot the bill, im in for 20$
You would actually pay money to an organization that strips away your autonomy, freedom of speech, dictates what products you can distribute and in what fashion - just to get a sticker on a box? I've heard about places for people who need those types of services for people who like to be exploited and submissive. You'd probably have to crawl around in the nether reaches of Craig's List if you're really interested in that kind of thing.

Then again his arguments about the FSF and RYF are largely made up. You should read it yourself.
As should the proponents. But the proponents seem to be quasi-religious in their faith that the FSF can do no wrong and that the RYF is a blessing from on high. That this blessing will result in the tens of other true believers beating a path to Ed's door to buy the Pandora successor and that those same sheep would scorn and ridicule the device should we make it perfectly FOSS and free in one preloaded software option but decide their cult is just too out there to bother with joining.

Interestingly enough, he went full circle and argued that  the terms would be contrary to his solution, which would actually be covered.
No, they wouldn't. Ubuntu - not approved. Debian - not approved.

Sans the windows drivers obviously, but why would you ship windows drivers without an OS..?
You ship drivers and an installer program without the OS so the end user can simply buy the OS on DVD, plug it in via the USB3.0 host port via a USB DVD drive (I have 3 - they're great), click the pre-loaded installer button and it can create a Windows install on the device with the drivers already there. All the end user has to do is walk into any retailer or buy a retail copy of the OS - if they really want it.

Ironically, you cant actually ship the playstore, unless you license Android officially. And its actually google that limits the distribution of gapps per default.
That explains why when installing Cyanogenmod you download one ZIP file for the OS and another one for gapps - which is readily available. So we would need a button in Android to download the App store? Ok.

F-droid, no problem.
Except that John Q Public has no freekin' clue what that is. Having Android pre-installed is half about marketing 'Full Android Installation with access to the Google Play store!"

An x86_64 portable solution is not viable in comparison, not because the drivers arent good.
Clearly you have been completely asleep through all of the conversations around the Z3770 64bit X86 SoC. How, precisely, do you figure that the drivers aren't good?  Do you have them?

Also, exo, Linux/gnu sounds good, cant deal with backslash though. How about Linux|Gnu. ;)
How about something like this?

L~G~i~n~n~u~u~X  

I think that artistically reflects the systematic blending of Linux, Gnu and X.  It is now ready for your worship and debate.
 
You would actually pay money to an organization that strips away your autonomy, freedom of speech, dictates what products you can distribute and in what fashion - just to get a sticker on a box?
Companies do this for certifications all the time, sometimes legally required and sometimes specialized optional ones. There is nothing special about the RYF certification in this regard, and compared to some certifications (like FCC) it's actually pretty lenient. Please stop spreading FUD. It's obvious that you aren't opposed to the RYF because they have restrictions per se (we covered this when you were ok with other situations where ED would be restricted in various ways), you're against it because of the specific restrictions they have and the contradictions to the FSF's system they entail. For everyone's sanity (mostly my own) focus on the actual restrictions you don't like instead of making up half baked scenarios about things that aren't true. If you'd pointed out the GNU/Linux requirement and the multi-boot scenario earlier, both of which are very real and strictly contradictory to the ideals of user freedom, we'd have reached consensus 12 pages ago.
 
You would actually pay money to an organization that strips away your autonomy, freedom of speech, dictates what products you can distribute and in what fashion - just to get a sticker on a box?
Companies do this for certifications all the time, sometimes legally required and sometimes specialized optional ones. There is nothing special about the RYF certification in this regard, and compared to some certifications (like FCC) it's actually pretty lenient. Please stop spreading FUD. It's obvious that you aren't opposed to the RYF because they have restrictions per se (we covered this when you were ok with other situations where ED would be restricted in various ways), you're against it because of the specific restrictions they have and the contradictions to the FSF's system they entail. For everyone's sanity (mostly my own) focus on the actual restrictions you don't like instead of making up half baked scenarios about things that aren't true. If you'd pointed out the GNU/Linux requirement and the multi-boot scenario earlier, both of which are very real and strictly contradictory to the ideals of user freedom, we'd have reached consensus 12 pages ago.
Sorry, I'm not omniscient.  Clearly I should have known that more people would be concerned about how a logo is formatted and multiple OS restrictions than in giving up freedom of speech, project self determination, money, etc...  To me, the freedom of speech issues, particularly having to pre-clear any and all materials and packaging of the product through the FSF, are the biggest reasons to ignore the FSF and simply do what's right.  The software restrictions and Gnu/Linux requirement are annoying as well - and are additional reasons to stay clear though.

I have never agreed that ED and the project should be restricted in -ANY- way other than to meet the legal requirements in areas that the product would be sold in.  Why should it?

There is no valid reason to join a club, organization or other and give up freedom in the project just to get some otherwise non-involved 3rd party's seal of approval.  The arguments in favor of the FSF/RYF all seem to come down to, "It's not that bad, really!  Just trust us and sign on the dotted line.  Don't bother with reading the fine print on the contract - nobody does."  It's about the same spiel you get when buying a used car from a lot.

Grench, what language do you speak natively?
I do not see how that is mundane to the topic.  However, the answer is English.
 
You are in luck, many people speak English. Get someone to read this to you, (and possibly explain it):
 
Spending my money, like I want to, is my freedom, and sense thereof, which is down to choice, mine, not yours, your point is null, void, and a hypocrisy.
Do not attack my person through a strawman.
 
Debian is perfectly fine, the RYF is perfectly fine with Debian. Nobody else in this thread has had a problem with Debian thus far.
 
Google is not ok with anyone shipping gapps or a solution that facilitates it with the OS, unless you license it from them.
you can thus, not advertise 'Full Android Installation with access to the Google Play store!
That cyanogenmod or suchlike does not advertise it that way, should give you a clue as to why we cant do it either.
 
You don't like F-droid or replicant, hardened excrements. I'm sure you are going to deal with the ensuing legal nightmare and/or licensing issues and payment? No? Tough shit again. Those are your options.
 
If you bothered to read the thread you would see me voicing concern about actual problems with the FSF and how to solve them. Answering with valid solutions, issues, which aren't made up. Learn.
 
An OS that doesn't ship with hardware support? -No. Right off the bat. ISHYGDDT costanza bonanza.
 
Remember, this debate is hardware, which has free drivers, which is how you get kernel support out of the box, which is what the RYF is about. Such a solution is about limiting hacks, not banking on them. Your solution, diamentrally opposite.  Notice how closed solutions are limited to freedom that matters, not coincidental. That your freedom is thus always void, correlation.
 
We cannot ship windows because our already existing community does not like it, (same problem Microsoft has) how about entertaining that idea and not facilitate cancer, FUD.
 
A clear idea is good, focus your energy, on a good idea, not how to make it worse. Anything but something that is equally good, the best compromise, takes away from the bottom line, its a solution that excludes, and is also economically not sound. With a RYF solution you can sell units to people who want to support that type of system. One that includes everyone. Whatever you think about them, or call them, those extra people who will only settle for nothing less, pay the same as anyone else. Extra money, more freedom, more customers. We are in the open market, not the closed one.  Free is free for reasons it isn't closed, there is no two ways about it.
Closed non-free, open, possibly free, free, definitely free.
 
More freedom in the software world means actually adhering to copyright, welcome to the real world. Legally you can trust in that those freedoms (which are defined for reasons) are upheld. Otherwise, feel free to make a non-free system and/or one that doesn't respect copyright, I wont use it. And guess what, when you make it, its copyrighted, by default. Do with that as you will, but cry about it somewhere else. As long as you don't have a system we like better, as devs and users, its pointless to cry to us about the reasons why you don't like free software.
 
We have what we have and the experience using it, we have a free system, that can inherently be made non-free through hardware. You do this in a downward fashion. Free hardware to us, free solution from us to the user. The user is at the liberty to do whatever with that freedom, because its where it belongs, fully there for the consumer. There are no restrictions that are contrary to this point. The RYF is not contrary to this point.
 
Shipping proprietary drivers in any sense limits those software freedoms, and for what benefit, going full retard?
 
If you want a pre-installed windows system, you can just go buy one of those discounted tablets that nobody wants to buy. Joining that market is dumb, because effectively that is subsidizing hardware by putting an OS on it that bad enough that people avoid it, in a market saturated with readily subsidized devices. Also, ARM windows is crazy restrictive in ways that remove freedom. MS cant spend enough money trying to create that market, and nobody wants to help them.
 
Pandora is a niche device for a niche audience, thats our market, use logic, make sure its consistent. If you dont, keep in mind people like you that seemingly dont, are few and far between, luckily.
 
"not because the drivers arent good."  That means: regardless the state of drivers, the problem exists. There is a problem, that isnt to do with drivers. There is a primary concern, and its valid for reasons drivers cant exclude, thus, the problem is somewhere else.
 
The lignux name has already been canned, which you would know if you did some research.
 

Grench, what language do you speak natively?
I do not see how that is mundane to the topic. However, the answer is English.
I dont know what language you know how to write. However, the answer isn't English.

1353427499387899.jpg


"The word 'mundane' has come to mean boring and dull, and it really shouldn't. It should mean the opposite because it comes from the latin 'mundus', meaning the world, and the world is anything but dull; the world is wonderful. There's real poetry in the real world. Science is the poetry of reality." -Hadawkins!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clearly I should have known that more people would be concerned about how a logo is formatted and multiple OS restrictions than in giving up freedom of speech, project self determination, money, etc...
No you shouldn't have. You also shouldn't have been making up entirely false situations to try and prove your point.
To me, the freedom of speech issues, particularly having to pre-clear any and all materials and packaging of the product through the FSF, are the biggest reasons to ignore the FSF and simply do what's right.
Fine, but that's not anything that is in any way unique to the RYF nor the FSF. No matter what certification you get, no matter what advertising you perform, any public forum will have some form of restriction. Your arguments in this case against the RYF certification are directly applicable to every single other certification and therefore meaningless.
I have never agreed that ED and the project should be restricted in -ANY- way other than to meet the legal requirements in areas that the product would be sold in.  Why should it?
I asked you if it would be ok if ED were to take out an magazine or TV advertisement despite the fact that there would be numerous restrictions on what he can say in those advertisements. You agreed that that would be ok. This is exactly what you are complaining about with the RYF, that it is restricting freedom of speech. These are directly contradictory. I don't think you're stupid, therefore I have to conclude that you aren't ACTUALLY against freedom of speech being restricted as you claim to be, you're just against it in this very specific case, and there are a lot of reasons to be against the FSF that have only tangential relation to the fact that we wouldn't be allowed to say certain things in advertising. My argument is that if you had focused on the true things in the certification that don't make sense instead of making shit up we'd have ended this discussion a long time ago.

There is no valid reason to join a club, organization or other and give up freedom in the project just to get some otherwise non-involved 3rd party's seal of approval.
And yet vegan, halal, kosher, meat grades, safety gear, air quality, sound quality, and numerous others that I can't think of off the top of my head exist. None of these are legally required and all have very strict rules on what it takes to get the certification and how that certification can be used. There is nothing stopping me from making and selling a hard hat, but how many sales am I actually going to get if I can't get it certified?Just because you personally do not see any benefit to the certification doesn't mean there aren't some people that would.

The arguments in favor of the FSF/RYF all seem to come down to, "It's not that bad, really!  Just trust us and sign on the dotted line.  Don't bother with reading the fine print on the contract - nobody does."  It's about the same spiel you get when buying a used car from a lot.
No one said that, that's you misunderstanding the entire debate. The arguments in favour of the RYF certification (not to be confused with the entire FSF organization, please stop doing that; it is possible to be vegan and disagree with PETA after all) were that it would be beneficial under the PREVIOUS ASSUMPTION THAT WE WOULD BE DOING MOST OF THESE THINGS ANYWAY and the understood things that we weren't doing by nature would have been trivial to implement. All of your arguments about things we would have had to do with the repo were false. Your belief that Ubuntu wouldn't qualify because it wasn't FSF blessed was based on your inability to separate FSF certification from the RYF certification. Everything you said had absolutely no basis in reality. Basically the entire argument for most of these pages has been pointing out where you were wrong. Demonstrating that you are wrong is not the same as saying the RYF certification is right.It wasn't until Exophase came along and pointed out other clauses without resorting to hyperbole that the truth started to come out.

The RYF certification is NOT a good fit for us, not because it would force the repo to change (it wouldn't), not because it would restrict OPT from even mentioning closed source software (it wouldn't), not because it would prevent us from shipping with whatever flavour of linux we wanted to (it wouldn't), but because it would force things to be added that otherwise wouldn't be, and eliminate certain expansions on freedom that wouldn't otherwise hinder any other freedoms.

I am likening you to a conspiracy theorist now. It's like, yes, you were right, the government has been spying on us as proven by the documents someone else has uncovered, but they still aren't using chem trails to keep you passive, vaccines to track you, and molar implants to read your thoughts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It boils down to restrictions in stating on the box, what's in the box. Which you already do, anything else is false advertising. If you want to put something else in the box than what is actually required by the RYF license, and something that makes sense please, do let us know.

Extra restrictions on its own seems bad, but this specific case, had positives, what are the negatives in reality?

The RYF badge comes with a license that mandates requirements, like any other, a license without them can only manifest itself in a marking like " a label that means nothing" which is non restrictive.

Edit (back to discussion): I hope some government agency or military branch picks it up, and i have hopes for debian putting in the hands of many devs.

Its not very unlikely, the device is also general purpose. RYF is publicity outside the gaming world. More openness is a self for-filling and enhancing security fix. X in userspace, more eyeballs on the rest. So what if its just 10 sales, maybe it brings along with a really heavy certification. (has anyone noticed how asus/gigabyte sell milspec component motherboards to consumers? Mainly overclockers, but there are lots of people in the world with 300m water resistant watches...) You get many gamers with one world record set by an overclocker!

By default along with the higher certifications you get lower ones, like general US government use. Solutions that factor in everyone by not excluding anyone can be good, grench doesnt like fsf people, i don't know how i feel about secretive government agencies, but those two actually contribute a lot back.

And they are willing to put the money on the table if the hardware is right, which means you can command and defend a higher price in being different.

TL;DR we are small and vocal, and should hone that, to make our strengths stronger we reach more people, and vice versa.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
*Pokes you all with a spoon*


Freedom is good, Choice is good, (As a sidenote: Linux is good).


You're not going to agree, so agree to disagree and be done with it.


Get it done, get it did, and move on outta there.


I do not wish to get the spoon out again.


That is all.


:-D *runs away*
 
My argument is that if you had focused on the true things in the certification that don't make sense instead of making shit up we'd have ended this discussion a long time ago.
Indeed.

All of your arguments about things we would have had to do with the repo were false. Your belief that Ubuntu wouldn't qualify because it wasn't FSF blessed was based on your inability to separate FSF certification from the RYF certification. Everything you said had absolutely no basis in reality. Basically the entire argument for most of these pages has been pointing out where you were wrong. Demonstrating that you are wrong is not the same as saying the RYF certification is right.
..and Indeed, again.
 
My vote is...

If you can get Foss drivers etc great do it but please don't bother with the RYF certification its too controlling.
 
I pretty much agree with milkshake. I have no problem with open source, I have no problem with distributing for free, but one thing I have a big problem with is the attitude that seems to come with all the 'free'* nonsense. I would rather the project doesn't have anything to do with pushing any set agendas, instead "Here is a cool product in it's own right! Cool hardware, cool software! Do what you like with it, we aren't sign up to any license/movement, we welcome one and all! Make yourself comfortable, you are in for a long enjoyable ride".

I put 'free' in quotes, because all the crazy zealots seem to have completely broken the word 'free' now.
 
Back
Top