Le mardi 16 août 2016 à 17:01 +0300, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic a écrit : > On 16.08.2016 11:43, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > > > > Le mardi 16 août 2016 à 10:31 +0300, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic a écrit : > > > > > > On 15.08.2016 22:23, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Le lundi 15 août 2016 à 21:45 +0300, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15.08.2016 21:23, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le lundi 15 août 2016 à 21:04 +0300, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic a écrit > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15.08.2016 20:09, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > It depends on the targeted audience. If that is the general public, > > > > > I'm > > > > > sure that the average user doesn't clearly recognize this term as > > > > > vague. > > > > > > > > > > I believe the targeted audience of the Parabola blog is not only > > > > > educated users/free software activists/developers, but the general > > > > > public/average computer user. > > > > > > > > I mean that the precise wording "free-software-friendly" is > > > > intrinsically > > > > vague, > > > > so I doubt that anyone will understand it as an equivalent of "fully > > > > free > > > > software" or "freedom-respecting". > > > > > > However, both average users and high-profile organizations in the free > > > software world are using "free software friendly" to also mean "fully > > > free software" or "freedom-respecting". > > > > I don't see the problem or contradiction here. It is vague so it can > > rightfully > > cover both terms. The point is that it is not intrinsically equivalent to > > one of > > those. > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the question is whether it's good to use vague wording. I think that > > > > e.g. > > > > for > > > > the news title, it would be fine. Of course, a link to RYF and the > > > > single- > > > > board- > > > > computers page could shed some more lights for anyone interested. > > > > > > Given the examples above where "free software friendly" is used by a > > > wide range of users, companies and nonprofits for both hardware fully > > > compatible with free software and hardware not fully compatible with > > > free software, I hope we can reach the same conclusion that we have to > > > avoid this ambiguous term which spreads confusion among what is and what > > > is not software freedom respecting, thus working against our efforts to > > > educate users as part of the free software movement. > > > > I disagree with that conclusion. Using a vague word implies that it doesn't > > refer to something more precise -- but it can cover such terms. I don't > > think > > that using a vague/broad expression, that lacks details, is confusing and > > misleading. It's just imprecise, which is different. > > > > People who'll understand free software-friendly as fully free are jumping to > > conclusion without any basis. The words don't hold that meaning, they are > > adding > > more sense to it than what the words hold. > > Well, based on my experience, the masses do understand free software > friendly as fully compatible with free software. Especially since a > company with FSF-endorsed hardware states:
But this is not what "friendly" means! "friendly" is inherently vague. It's not reasonable to act on what some people might add to that meaning: it becomes impossible to draw a line then. > "For more information on free software friendly hardware check out the > Free Software Foundation's Respect Your Freedom web site at: fsf.org/ryf." > https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/short-interview-christopher-waid-about- > thinkpenguin-linux-action-show > > Which IMO sends the message "free software friendly" is equivalent to > "respects your freedom". This is an interpretation, too. It is true that "free software friendly" covers RYF. Also, RYF is not equivalent to "respects freedom". Either way, I don't see the point of showing examples of people using "free software friendly" in different ways. The words have a precise meaning, that's all. How it's generally used and the context association feels irrelevant to me. -- Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices Website: https://www.paulk.fr/ Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/ Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@lists.parabola.nu https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev