Resending with the right address, please don't CC my Replicant address since this is not directly related to Replicant.
Hi, Le lundi 15 août 2016 à 21:04 +0300, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic a écrit : > > Hi, > > I'm not a Parabola hacker and I only speak for myself. I believe Paul > refers to this news entry at parabola.nu: > > https://www.parabola.nu/news/new-libre-hardware-crowdfunding-project-with-para > bola-pre-installed/ That is correct, thanks for pointing it out, I forgot to mention it. > > On 15.08.2016 20:09, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > > > > > > * "New Libre Hardware Crowdfunding Project" > > > > Saying that the hardware is libre or free is an overstatement. > [...] > > > > > > I think the title should be reworked, depending on whether the circuit board > > design is libre or not. > > I agree. AFAIR the circuit board design is being withheld for now, and > the designer has promised to release it at a later date (presumably > under a libre license). > > Quoting from the campaign page: > > "The only exception to this rule to release everything in advance is the > PCB CAD files for the Computer Card. We’re planning to release the PCB > CAD files for the Computer card once sufficient units are hit that > ensures any third party manufacturing runs will not undermine the > project’s development or stability." > - https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop Good to know! Then I feel that the blog post should either state that or not comment on the hardware aspects. > > > > > Thus, it would be more accurate to say that the device is free-software- > > friendly, which is vague enough to not be contradictory with the facts. > > I'm not really a big fan of the "free-software-friendly" term, exactly > because it's vague (laking a definition/criteria) and it doesn't really > tell users much regarding how respecting of software freedom that piece > of hardware is. That's why a wide range of hardware projects feel at > liberty to promote themselves as "free-software-friendly". Indeed, it's not very precise, but I don't think that's the goal here. I think vague statements are fine as long as they are clearly recognized as such. Specific points about the A20 platform can be dug out from: http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/single-board-computers > > > > > Of course, this situation is much better than many other computers out > > there, > > that can't even startup without proprietary software. > > I agree. Instead of using the term "software-freedom-respecting" or > saying it "respects your freedom" or that it "respects your software > freedom", probably a better choice of words and accurate presentation is > that this hardware is RYF-certifiable by FSF or that it has been allowed > by FSF the provisional use of the RYF certification mark, to quote Joshua: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2016-06/msg00213.html Yes, that is fine too IMO.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@lists.parabola.nu https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev