On 16.08.2016 22:14, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > Le mardi 16 août 2016 à 20:34 +0200, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) a écrit : >> (“Respects your freedom” would be equally fuzzy if it were not certified >> according to clear criteria.) > > On that, I disagree. Freedom in technology has a very precise definition, and > respecting that definition is very binary and straightforward. I don't see > what's fuzzy about it.
At least freedom in software has a very precise definition. I'm not aware of a hardware freedom definition. But by extension, considering that hardware is designed and manufactured using a hardware description language, one can define freedom in hardware as freedom of the hardware description software. I believe this is the point made in this relatively recent essay of RMS: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html It seems freedomdefined.org which hosts the most known and accepted definition for freedom in culture also hosts a definition for "open source hardware": http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW It's also linked from Open Design Definition at OKFN: http://design.okfn.org/designdefinition/ I couldn't find a definition for hardware freedom at Hardware Freedom Day: http://www.hfday.org/ > The FSF's RYF certification is instead adding layers of compromises (and also > mixing a bunch of other aspects in the bag). So I certainly wouldn't mix > "respects your freedom" and "the FSF's respect your freedom certification". Yes, you're right. I have just received the answer from RMS regarding the use of "free software friendly": On 16.08.2016 22:52, Richard Stallman wrote: >> IMO, we should teach users to avoid this ambiguous term. Instead of >> "free software friendly", they should use the term "compatible with >> fully free operating systems" if the hardware is compatible with free >> distros endorsed by FSF. > > I agree. The FSF could post something about this. I will suggest it > to the campaigns people. > > In the long term, I hope that our endorsement, RYF, will set a > standard and that people will come to see other terms, without clear > and strict definitions as inadequate. Thanks, Tiberiu -- https://ceata.org https://tehnoetic.com _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@lists.parabola.nu https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev