On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Gordan Bobic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> so it depends what's more important to the freedombox foundation. to >> put out a message that it's "ok that CPU Manufacturers are >> dishonourable and only provide information under NDA, and we, the >> FreedomBox Foundation fully and actively support and endorse this >> behaviour, as evidenced by our supply of units to our Sponsors". > > I wouldn't call the behaviour you describe as dishonourable, merely business > limiting right. just as the 90% GPL violations rate on android tablets is not "dishonourable", merely "business limiting" http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/android_tablets/ [that's not me being sarcastic, btw]. > (or at least it should be, contrary to the example we are > discussing here). I can understand the moreal-hazard aspect of your > argument, though. it's about leading by example [ghandi: "be the change you want to see in the world"]. if the FreedomBox Foundation holds to certain principles, to respect Software Freedom, how the f*** does it look if the FreedomBox Foundation does not uphold those principles itself?? what message does that send to the world? l. _______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
