Le mardi 16 août 2016 à 20:34 +0100, Josh Branning a écrit : > On 16/08/16 20:14, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > > > > > I certainly wouldn't mix > > "respects your freedom" and "the FSF's respect your freedom certification". > > So what would you say instead; that is, for a device that is completely > free in software terms, but hasn't been through the FSF's certification > process?
"runs with fully free software" means something precise, I don't see any problem with it. But of course, it doesn't apply here. > ___________________________________________________________________ > > ... Either way, I think the conversation is diverging a bit from your > (IMO) completely valid and excellent point that the parabola news > article is somewhat misleading, and should really be corrected > (especially now that we've realised that we can't even find the pdf of > schematics for the EOMA68 when "libre hardware" is mentioned). Okay so we should try to come up with suggestions for each sentence that I quoted in the first email, that don't use "freedom-friendly" since the consensus is to avoid that term. Any propositions? -- 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
