* Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss <libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> [2022-01-05 05:15]: > I have now written a formal policy for the Libreboot project: > > https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html > > I have also written one for my parallel fork that I maintain, based on > Libreboot: > > https://osboot.org/news/policy.html
On this following chapter about problems with RYF criteria, I am in agreement. On the other hand your OSBoot policy is hypocrisy to Libreboot policies. You are sitting on two chairs. > Problems with RYF criteria > [link] > You can read those guidelines by following these hyperlinks: > * GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG) > * FSF Respects Your Freedom (RYF) guidelines > The FSF RYF guidelines state the following: > “However, there is one exception for secondary embedded > processors. The exception applies to software delivered inside > auxiliary and low-level processors and FPGAs, within which software > installation is not intended after the user obtains the product. This > can include, for instance, microcode inside a processor, firmware > built into an I/O device, or the gate pattern of an FPGA. The software > in such secondary processors does not count as product software.” > This is absolute pure nonsense, and should be rejected on ideological > grounds. The rest of libreboot’s policy and overall ideology > expressed, in this article, will be based largely on that > rejection. The term product software is completely asinine; software > is software, and software should always be free. Instead of making > such exceptions, more hardware should be encouraged, with help given > to provide as much freedom as possible, while providing education to > users about any pitfalls they may encounter, and encourage freedom at > all levels. When an organisation like the FSF makes such bold > exceptions as above, it sends the wrong message, by telling people > essentially to sweep these other problems under the rug, just because > they involve software that happens to run on a “secondary > processor”. If the software is possible to update by the user, then it > should be free, regardless of whether the manufacturer intended for it > to be upgraded or not. Where it really isn’t possible to update such > software, proprietary or not, advice should be given to that > effect. Education is important, and the FSF’s criteria actively > discourages such education; it creates a false hope that everything is > great and wonderful, just because the software on one arbitrary level > is all free. -- Thanks, Jean Louis Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss