subject:"Re\: \[Dev\] Misleading information in EOMA68 news"

On 2016-08-25 10:03 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:

On 26.08.2016 02:18, Christopher Waid wrote:

On 2016-08-25 05:59 AM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:

On 25.08.2016 11:42, Christopher Waid wrote:

I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. Wake me when you've
actually contributed something of significance and aren't just
trying to

undermine those working on solving these problems. For some of us it
isn't about financial gain. We actually want to see 100% free
hardware.

I don't need you to take me seriously. I'm merely stating the facts
and

drawing logical conclusions. I could be just a new free software user
with no contribution what so ever.

No. Your selectively quoting with the clear intent to mislead. You are
doing exactly what you propose we're doing. There is a difference
between accidentally misstating something technical and selectively
pulling quotes that make it sound as if I was misleading people.

Freedom is not a technicality, but I've been told this before by people
who do librewashing. Of course you're misleading people. You've been
doing this for several years and you're getting better and better at
it.

Also, I'd like to mention that English is not my mother tongue (that is
Romanian) and I don't have the language skills to express my ideas as
well as a native, nor I have or desire to have your manipulation skills
to do brainwashing with gigantic replies. Moreover, I'm not getting
paid

for my activism work, so if I'm spending time raising awareness on
freedom issues, I do it sacrificing hours I should be spending to be
able to support myself and in the process serve people hardware
compatible with fully free operating systems.

I never said freedom was a technicality. You're intentionally
misunderstanding what I'm saying. Your understanding of English isn't
that bad.

If you believe that what I'm doing is undermining your projects, then
you might be do something wrong in your projects. Like claiming your
proprietary BIOS laptops and desktops are OK in regard to software
freedom as your WiFi adapters.

I never made that claim. You are twisting words around as if that is
what I was saying. It was clear from the video and I'd encourage
anybody

who believes this to watch it.

I will repeat the arguments and the logic once more. I hate that you're
wasting my time by making me do this over and over again, while instead
you could read again my arguments and logic and see if they make sense.
Okay, here is another attempt to prove that I'm not falsely accusing
you. This time I will break it into small baby steps.

You are quoting ancient text that was pulled from our about page I think
from a very very long time ago. The actual about page hasn't included
this for years. Yes- it was imperfect and has LONG ago been
fixed/improved upon.

Get lost.

Quoting:

"ThinkPenguin, Inc. is currently the only company with a significant
catalog selling free software friendly hardware. From wifi adapters and
printers to desktops and laptops. 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

I'm now breaking this paragraph into logical sentences:

S1: ThinkPenguin has a significant catalog of free software friendly
hardware.

S2: ThinkPenguin's catalog of free software friendly hardware is
significant because it ranges from wifi adapters and printers to
desktops and laptops.

S1 & S2 => S3

S3: The free software friendly hardware at ThinkPenguin ranges from
wifi

adapters and printers to desktops and laptops.

S4: So far ThinkPenguin has provided you information on the free
software friendly hardware at ThinkPenguin.

S5: For more information on free software friendly hardware, check out
FSF's RYF web site.

S4 & S5 => S6

S6: ThinkPenguin's free software friendly hardware is the same as the
hardware FSF says it respects your freedom.

S3 & S6 => S7

S7: ThinkPenguin's hardware ranging from wifi adapters and printers to
desktops and laptops respect your freedom.

This is basic logic any visitor reading the paragraph would apply and
reach the same conclusion.

(S)he couldn't find ThinkPenguin's laptops listed as certified on the
FSF's RYF page, but couldn't find listed some of ThinkPenguin's wifi
adapters either. Or some other hardware at ThinkPenguin, like printers,
for instance.

(S)he could think that ThinkPenguin has decided not to submit the
laptops for FSF's RYF certification, the way some of the ThinkPenguin's
wifi adapters haven't been submitted for certification, although all
their wifi adapters are respecting user's freedom. Or (s)he could
simply
think that ThinkPenguin's laptops are currently under evaluation at
FSF.

In any case, (s)he looks for the laptops at ThinkPenguin and find the
two product pages:

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news


On 2016-08-25 05:59 AM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:

On 25.08.2016 11:42, Christopher Waid wrote:

I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. Wake me when you've
actually contributed something of significance and aren't just trying 
to

undermine those working on solving these problems. For some of us it
isn't about financial gain. We actually want to see 100% free 
hardware.


I don't need you to take me seriously. I'm merely stating the facts and
drawing logical conclusions. I could be just a new free software user
with no contribution what so ever.


No. Your selectively quoting with the clear intent to mislead. You are 
doing exactly what you propose we're doing. There is a difference 
between accidentally misstating something technical and selectively 
pulling quotes that make it sound as if I was misleading people.




If you believe that what I'm doing is undermining your projects, then
you might be do something wrong in your projects. Like claiming your
proprietary BIOS laptops and desktops are OK in regard to software
freedom as your WiFi adapters.


I never made that claim. You are twisting words around as if that is 
what I was saying. It was clear from the video and I'd encourage anybody 
who believes this to watch it.



Like claiming EOMA68 board is libre
hardware although no one has access to the PCB CAD files under a
free/libre license.


Everything is already available with one exception that was clearly 
stated and the reason why. Luke was upfront about everything:


"The only exception to this rule to release everything in advance is the 
PCB CAD files for the Computer Card. We’re planning to release the PCB 
CAD files for the Computer card once sufficient units are hit that 
ensures any third party manufacturing runs will not undermine the 
project’s development or stability."


I also already explained that someone has already attempted to undermine 
the project. The decision to withhold this is temporary, and nobody said 
it was beholden on the success of the campaign even, and given that we 
have already released everything else our intent is clear.


It's also unusual to release this kind of thing if it is released at all 
prior to the shipping of the rewards. It's not even wrong to release 
nothing until after the crowd funding campaign is done or the rewards 
ship. The fact it is being done prior is in spirit with the philosophy 
and a mark of good will toward the community.



Like not guaranteeing EOMA68 campaign backers that
they will receive the PCB CAD files under a free license along with the
EOMA68 product when shipped.


It's already abundantly clear that it's going to be released. We're at 
$145,300 of $150,000 as of this moment. That is 97% and there is still 
25 hours to go. There is zero chance we won't hit that target and 
technically we already surpassed the number needed for us to proceed 
because the # we estimated could not be 100% determined until we knew 
the ratios of rewards. Given that I don't see any reason Luke won't post 
the files soon. If he doesn't though it still won't matter from an 
ethical stand point because they will be released well before anybody 
gets these devices and it will be within the statements/promises made. 
Nobody is breaking a promise here.



Like claiming EOMA68 board is a
breakthrough in the line of software freedom. Like undermining 
Libreboot

project and spreading FUD about it (that Libreboot is only for old
x86-based laptops).


While it supports a newer ARM laptop or two it's not any better 
ethically speaking from a freedom stand point than using free versions 
of Uboot. These Chromebooks are actually hostile to users freedom and 
I'd highly discourage people from going this route. The older X86 
LibreBoot laptops don't depend on proprietary firmwares for the wifi 
chips. With the older X86 laptops you can replace the internal wifi 
cards with free ones. That's not possible on the newer Chromebooks. This 
is just one great example of why EOMA68 matters so much.


LibreBoot's value when you talk about freedom is on older X86 laptops. 
This is not FUD, just fact. There may be other features that are 
desirable and therefore support of EOMA68 devices makes sense. However 
it is not an ethics or freedom issue.



Like not providing config file to build LibreCMC.


You are flat out lying. We ship it with every router on CD.


Like LibreCMC not building at all lately.


This is nonsense. There are better directions for building LibreCMC than 
just about any other project and we are frequently complimented on how 
easy it is to get working. The Software Freedom Conservancy even used 
our routers as an example of how to do GPL compliance properly: 
https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech22.html. If there 
are issues building LibreCMC it's not something we did explicitly. It 
could be any number of problems.


This is telling:

"If an investigator of average skill in embedded firmware construction 
can surmise the

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news


On 2016-08-25 05:01 AM, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:

Hi,

Le jeudi 25 août 2016 à 04:42 -0400, Christopher Waid a écrit :
The laptops we sell currently @ ThinkPenguin are not RYF'd and 
shouldn't
be RYF'd, but we are working on something better than LibreBoot in 
that
it solves the free software problems in a more permanent long term 
way:

EOMA68. X86 is dead and we do not need LibreBoot for non-X86 systems.


I'm very surprised to read this. How do we not need Libreboot in 
general?


Having a fully free bootup software distribution is IMO crucial to pave 
the road
for free software support. Note that U-Boot includes proprietary 
software and
should not be included as-is in or recommended by any FSDG-compliant 
dsitros.


Also, Libreboot is currently based on Coreboot (which, by the way, 
supports an
increasing number of ARM devices, with Chromebooks) but there's not 
reason it
can't handle U-Boot in the future too, or whatever other free bootup 
software.


So with upcoming ARM Chromebooks, the very large number of ARM devices 
that can
boot up with free software and other interesting platforms such as 
POWER8 and

POWER9, Libreboot still has a bright future ahead.


We already have completely free versions of Uboot for various ARM and 
MIPS devices. All of our routers have shipped with the complete set of 
source code for the OS and bootloader. The devices are RYF certified and 
do not contain any proprietary bits in the version of Uboot run on our 
routers.


https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/free-software-wireless-n-mini-vpn-router-tpe-r1100

I want to make it clear that I don't dislike LibreBoot and I'm not 
saying it has no value. It's value right now to me is clear. It's 100% 
free software for what is otherwise proprietary. I value that. As we 
move away from X86 the value in it from a freedom-perspective will 
diminish as alternatives exist. In that position I would begin to think 
about alternative projects to work on if my primary focus was advancing 
software freedom.


What I believe will make it valuable to people down the line will be 
functionality (within the free software community and maybe even 
beyond). I don't know what this functionality is right now and I simply 
know that it's got value to some use case still. If I had to take an 
educated guess I'd probably say it has functionality which is useful to 
system administrators in server environments. From what I understand of 
CoreBoot from which LibreBoot is derived that functionality was what has 
in the past spurred CoreBoot's adoption by those outside the free 
software world.


If servers were a high priority for us (they aren't) I'd probably be 
pushing/sponsoring LibreBoot. I was the first person to suggest 
LibreBoot add a donation option. Right now our focus is on laptops, 
desktops, and typical end-user hardware. I want to see GNU/Linux and 
free software adopted by the masses. It's largely won in the server 
arena and there is a huge market opportunity here for free software 
servers to anyone who wished to pursue it.





The reason this issue hasn't been solved by us is because it's simply
not possible given Intel's hostility and refusal to cooperate. Reverse
engineering is a non-trivial task and the resulting code would not run
on modern Intel systems due to digital signatures.


Of course, we all agree that x86 is a dead-end, at least in the long 
run. There
are still possibilities with somewhat old Intel and AMD hardware, but 
these will
be outdated eventually. Also, note that most of these old x86 platforms 
are

much, much faster than the A20.


Of course. The solution isn't intended to outperform. It's intended to 
solve a problem. That problem is X86 doesn't work for us and it's too 
costly to have to design and manufacture our own non-x86 hardware (which 
is critical given all newer non-X86 hardware is dependent on other 
proprietary components such as 802.11ac wifi chips). The solution to 
that is modularization. This has a side benefit of making it easy and 
cheap (relatively speaking, and therefore feasible) to manufacture new 
'models' in addition to giving us inroads to obtain source code for 
higher end CPUs [moving forward]. Even ones that aren't yet on the 
market! That's a huge change to the two steps forward one step back we 
were doing before. Right now we are several years behind because of our 
dependence on X86 and companies who won't cooperate. By moving away and 
modularizing we can let companies designing CPUs cater to our demands. 
This is what you get from competition.




We can do a lot more  than what is feasible with LibreBoot, but it has 
taken
years. Now that EOMA68 crowd funding campaign has succeeded though or 
is about

to succeed we can do a 100% free software system


Note that the level of free software support brought by the EOMA68 is 
not really

something new.


This is incorrect or a misunderstanding of the value here. Its taken 
years and a lot of reverse engineering to

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

I'm going to reiterate that it is not my position that the wording 'free
software friendly' is perfect. Changing this to compatible with free
software operating systems may work. It may not. It may depend on the
context. It may be challenging to integrate.

The laptops we sell currently @ ThinkPenguin are not RYF'd and shouldn't
be RYF'd, but we are working on something better than LibreBoot in that
it solves the free software problems in a more permanent long term way:
EOMA68. X86 is dead and we do not need LibreBoot for non-X86 systems.
The reason this issue hasn't been solved by us is because it's simply
not possible given Intel's hostility and refusal to cooperate. Reverse
engineering is a non-trivial task and the resulting code would not run
on modern Intel systems due to digital signatures. We can do a lot more
than what is feasible with LibreBoot, but it has taken years. Now that
EOMA68 crowd funding campaign has succeeded though or is about to
succeed we can do a 100% free software system (that is LibreBoot doesn't
magically make a computer 100% free, there are other problematic
components). We've got the source code for LCD/Keyboard controller
firmware, bootloaders, CPU micro code, and similar for the EOMA68 laptop
housing and Libre Tea Computer Card. That's huge. And there are more
significant developments coming including the release of schematics and
higher end CPUs.

I'm not sure if it is clear so I'm going to state for the record that
I'm the CEO of ThinkPenguin and ThinkPenguin sponsored Luke's work on
EOMA68. I'm a good person to respond to the criticisms about pretty much
anything related to TP, EOMA68, and the comments below. We've pulled off
getting code for chips in the past and have a solid track record
including release of other RYF'd products. More than anyone else
actually. We were in competition for being the first company to release
an RYF product and our efforts to free hardware pre-date the RYF
program.

On 2016-08-24 03:31 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:

On 24.08.2016 20:18, Christopher Waid wrote:

When this text was written LibreBoot didn't exist

I beg to differ.

The quote was 2008/2009. If there was something else referenced I didn't
see it.

The text we refer to is from summer 2014 after
SouthEast GNU/Linux Fest 2014 took place on June 20-22, 2014.

https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/short-interview-christopher-waid-about-thinkpenguin-linux-action-show

The systems are compatible with Trisquel and Parabola GNU/Linux-libre
and not dependent on any OS-loaded proprietary bits. This is not to say
they are completely free of proprietary bits. That's what we've been
working toward, but it's a much bigger goal to hit than just freeing the
BIOS.

While FSF awarded the RYF certification to Gluglug for the X60 laptop
preinstalled with deblobbed Coreboot in December 2013.

The RYF Lenovo laptops with LibreBoot from Mini Free are not entirely
free even though they have RYF status from the FSF. It doesn't appear at
a quick glance that it is being advertised as entirely free either.

http://www.fsf.org/news/gluglug-x60-laptop-now-certified-to-respect-your-freedom

And the deblobbed Coreboot has been named Libreboot "during early
2014".

That is, before the summer conference and show edition.

https://libreboot.org/docs/index.html#why

Knowing that, in the beginning of the GNU/Linux Action Show interview
you still falsely stated that ThinkPenguin "makes sure that all the
hardware in your catalog is 100% free software friendly" (57:20). That
includes desktops and laptops.

You went on and said that "every bit of firmware on your laptops is
free

software, except for the BIOS which is... outside". (57:26)

You have to watch the entire segment and keep it in context to
understand what was being said. It was not that there weren't any
non-free bits. It was that there weren't any OS-loaded non-free
firmwares or drivers that would interfere with compatibility and
support. Notice the word 'outside' in the quotes. That part might not
have been very clear, but by BIOS I was really referring to anything not
loaded by the OS, and it was clearer if you quoted the later bit:

"basically anything that is loaded by the operating system is free"

Which obviously excludes the BIOS, hard disk firmware, keyboard/LCD
controller firmware, CPU micro code, etc. These bits are all stored on
flash and not loaded by the OS (or need not be loaded by the OS as a
result).

Humorously it also becomes more apparent when you take into account that
I had mentioned Linux Mint alongside Trisquel. This was essentially a
sales pitch to users of non-free distributions (ie most Linux Action
Show viewers) to care about and understand some of the damage done by
proprietary drivers/firmware.

Fast forwarding to November 2015 when FSF announces the discounted
ThinkPenguin products for their associate members.

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-25 Thread Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic

On 25.08.2016 14:42, Josh Branning wrote:
> On 25/08/16 06:05, Isaac David wrote:
>> The link will still contain the phrase "libre
>> hardware"; I would not like to break it.

> Thanks for this. I think you've made the right decision.

IMO, this is not okay. Changing the link and then having the old one
redirect to this new one is the right thing to do.
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-25 Thread Josh Branning


On 25/08/16 06:05, Isaac David wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

OK, this sounds like consensus. We have made enough of a
fuss over this little thing,
https://pad.partidopirata.com.ar/p/parabola-eoma/timeslider#429
is now live.

Adonay took care of the last concerns raised by Paul after
revision 310. I decided not to touch on the licensing of
hardware design files at all, so as to not speculate either
way. I would love to see those released in the future, but
future-proofing the reliability of this information is more
important. The link will still contain the phrase "libre
hardware"; I would not like to break it.

Thanks all.

- --
isacdaavid


Thanks for this. I think you've made the right decision. I didn't 
realise that the A20 has a Mali400 GPU, so the bit about there not being 
a free 3D graphics driver /may/ have been a mistake on my part.


___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-25 Thread Paul Kocialkowski

Hi,

Le jeudi 25 août 2016 à 04:42 -0400, Christopher Waid a écrit :
> The laptops we sell currently @ ThinkPenguin are not RYF'd and shouldn't 
> be RYF'd, but we are working on something better than LibreBoot in that 
> it solves the free software problems in a more permanent long term way: 
> EOMA68. X86 is dead and we do not need LibreBoot for non-X86 systems. 

I'm very surprised to read this. How do we not need Libreboot in general?

Having a fully free bootup software distribution is IMO crucial to pave the road
for free software support. Note that U-Boot includes proprietary software and
should not be included as-is in or recommended by any FSDG-compliant dsitros.

Also, Libreboot is currently based on Coreboot (which, by the way, supports an
increasing number of ARM devices, with Chromebooks) but there's not reason it
can't handle U-Boot in the future too, or whatever other free bootup software.

So with upcoming ARM Chromebooks, the very large number of ARM devices that can
boot up with free software and other interesting platforms such as POWER8 and
POWER9, Libreboot still has a bright future ahead.

> The reason this issue hasn't been solved by us is because it's simply 
> not possible given Intel's hostility and refusal to cooperate. Reverse 
> engineering is a non-trivial task and the resulting code would not run 
> on modern Intel systems due to digital signatures.

Of course, we all agree that x86 is a dead-end, at least in the long run. There
are still possibilities with somewhat old Intel and AMD hardware, but these will
be outdated eventually. Also, note that most of these old x86 platforms are
much, much faster than the A20.

> We can do a lot more  than what is feasible with LibreBoot, but it has taken
> years. Now that EOMA68 crowd funding campaign has succeeded though or is about
> to succeed we can do a 100% free software system

Note that the level of free software support brought by the EOMA68 is not really
something new. There have been dozens of computers, some of which come with a
free board design, using platforms that are as good for freedom, especially with
Allwinner (but there are lots of others). The linux-sunxi community has been
working hard on those for years and years, so this is nothing new or specific to
the EOMA68.

Many ARM Chromebooks even go a step further, with a free software embedded
controller firmware.

> (that is LibreBoot doesn't magically make a computer 100% free, there are
> other problematic components).

Of course, but nobody claimed that it does. It is only a very significant piece
in the software freedom puzzle.

> We've got the source code for LCD/Keyboard controller firmware,

Regarding LCD: are you talking about a MIPI interface done in software with a
MCU? Please feel free to share details about this LCD controller firmware, I'd
be very interested to learn more about it, it sounds unusual!

> bootloaders, CPU micro code

Huh? Again, please share details about the CPU microcodes. I am not aware of any
ARMv7 implementation using a microcode at all, nor of any that was liberated.

> and similar for the EOMA68 laptop housing and Libre Tea Computer Card. That's
> huge. And there are more significant developments coming including the release
> of schematics and higher end CPUs.

I fully agree that this is great and I support your project. However, keep in
mind that this is nothing new or groundbreaking (not to undermine the project
and the efforts associated with it).

-- 
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

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-25 Thread Paul Kocialkowski

Le jeudi 25 août 2016 à 00:05 -0500, Isaac David a écrit :
> OK, this sounds like consensus. We have made enough of a
> fuss over this little thing,
> https://pad.partidopirata.com.ar/p/parabola-eoma/timeslider#429
> is now live.

Looks good to me.

> Adonay took care of the last concerns raised by Paul after
> revision 310. I decided not to touch on the licensing of
> hardware design files at all, so as to not speculate either
> way. I would love to see those released in the future, but
> future-proofing the reliability of this information is more
> important. The link will still contain the phrase "libre
> hardware"; I would not like to break it.

I agree, thanks!

-- 
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

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-24 Thread Isaac David


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

OK, this sounds like consensus. We have made enough of a
fuss over this little thing,
https://pad.partidopirata.com.ar/p/parabola-eoma/timeslider#429
is now live.

Adonay took care of the last concerns raised by Paul after
revision 310. I decided not to touch on the licensing of
hardware design files at all, so as to not speculate either
way. I would love to see those released in the future, but
future-proofing the reliability of this information is more
important. The link will still contain the phrase "libre
hardware"; I would not like to break it.

Thanks all.

- --
isacdaavid

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=q2gb
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-24 Thread Josh Branning


Others: what do you think of this version? Please acknowledge when you think
it's ready. At this point, revision 310 suits me fine:
https://pad.partidopirata.com.ar/p/parabola-eoma/timeslider#310


I think this revision fits the bill and is ready.

Josh

___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-24 Thread Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic

On 24.08.2016 20:18, Christopher Waid wrote:
> When this text was written LibreBoot didn't exist

I beg to differ. The text we refer to is from summer 2014 after
SouthEast GNU/Linux Fest 2014 took place on June 20-22, 2014.

https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/short-interview-christopher-waid-about-thinkpenguin-linux-action-show

While FSF awarded the RYF certification to Gluglug for the X60 laptop
preinstalled with deblobbed Coreboot in December 2013.

http://www.fsf.org/news/gluglug-x60-laptop-now-certified-to-respect-your-freedom

And the deblobbed Coreboot has been named Libreboot "during early 2014".
That is, before the summer conference and show edition.

https://libreboot.org/docs/index.html#why

Knowing that, in the beginning of the GNU/Linux Action Show interview
you still falsely stated that ThinkPenguin "makes sure that all the
hardware in your catalog is 100% free software friendly" (57:20). That
includes desktops and laptops.

You went on and said that "every bit of firmware on your laptops is free
software, except for the BIOS which is... outside". (57:26)

Fast forwarding to November 2015 when FSF announces the discounted
ThinkPenguin products for their associate members.

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/fsf-members-now-get-5-off-thinkpenguin-free-software-friendly-devices

Quoting:

"ThinkPenguin sells free software-friendly hardware, including laptops,
desktops, WiFi adapters (useful if your laptop's WiFi can't work with a
free driver), printers and more."

I guess it's convenient to have FSF recommend their associate members
your laptops and desktops with proprietary BIOS 1 month after their 30th
anniversary in October.

Right after in October you were sending off Libreboot founder and lead
developer to go work on free software for GPS devices, because in your
opinion she "would have done better" . You went on and said the effort
to have free BIOS for older laptops "would have been better spent
elsewhere", because getting software freedom-respecting laptops "is a
harder problem to solve and it is going to require massive amounts of
money".

https://trisquel.info/en/forum/asus-chromebook-c201-now-supported-libreboot-arm-cpu?page=1#comment-80943

It's also convenient to let know all FSF associate members that your
devices are OK in respect to freedom:

"5% off free software-friendly devices from ThinkPenguin" --
https://my.fsf.org/

But for you it must be as you say, just a "minor issue" you "can't
afford waste time" on it. For the rest of us, including founder of the
free software movement and the GNU project, it's not:

On 16.08.2016 22:52, Richard Stallman wrote:
> On 16.08.2016 17:14, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic 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.
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-24 Thread Christopher Waid


On 2016-08-24 06:25 AM, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:

Le mardi 23 août 2016 à 11:24 -0300, Adonay Felipe Nogueira a écrit :
Just now, I **have** subscribed to Parabola's dev mailing list. So 
I'll

try to catch-up with this topic. :)

I'm inserting libreplanet-discuss and trisquel-users mailing lists as
recipients of this email because of my opinion on Tiberiu-Cezar
Tehnoetic's message
().

I'm also inserting a member of ThinkPenguin as recipient so as to let
him know the issue found by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic, which is 
discussed

furthermore in this email.

I agree with Paul Kocialkowski's original message
().
Furthermore, my **last** edit in the original pad
() is 
perhaps

the most correct one (if the timeslider references don't change over
time, it should be
, 
saved July 24th, 2016. After this version, the misleading text gets 
added).


Feel free to contribute to the revision pad:
https://pad.partidopirata.com.ar/p/parabola-eoma

Others: what do you think of this version? Please acknowledge when you 
think

it's ready. At this point, revision 310 suits me fine:
https://pad.partidopirata.com.ar/p/parabola-eoma/timeslider#310

However, I would gladly skip the part following "However, it's 
important to note
that:". Providing details there seems like a very slippery slope and 
I'd rather
link to relevant posts or information from the campaign page. Better 
yet,

quoting parts from there would be even more appropriate.

For instance, "2D and video acceleration work well with free software", 
while
being true, is not precise enough to be a really useful information. 
Also, the
part about the circuit board is too vague, since only the EOMA68 card 
(and not

the landing board or laptop board) were said to be withheld.


About Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic's message
():
Indeed, the use of "free software friendly" to also mean "fully free
software" or "freedom-respecting" is a communication noise (article on
Wikipedia: ).
Basically, in context of marketing (not sales), a communication noise
happens when **either** the senders or receivers of a message
distort-or-misunderstand the message.

Besides, I'm inserting a member of ThinkPenguin as recipient of this
email so as to let him know the issue that Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic 
found
in ThinkPenguin's website content. This was done so as to make it 
easier

for ThinkPenguin to see the issue. This **is not** meant to be taken
offensively.


They may agree that it's an issue or not. I don't think it is one.
For the record, you're probably referring to "Company #2" from:
https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004353.html


If the world were perfect I might fix this imperfection immediately. 
Every small fix takes time though and time is not something we have. We 
can't afford to waste it on minor issues. We have many many small issues 
yet to deal with after eight years and many many much bigger issues. If 
it took a fine tooth comb to find an issue it's probably not worth 
dealing with [immediately].


When this text was written LibreBoot didn't exist and I was probably the 
only person who had even looked into the possibility of porting CoreBoot 
to newer systems or free'ing it [this was around 2009]. It also was the 
case that all the core components [chipsets, like wifi, graphics, etc] 
were free so within the context of the day it was adequately describing 
I think, even if not a perfect choice of words to the extant that 
anybody else would have understood them.


When I say big issues I'm talking about things like getting sources 
released for newer CPUs/SOCs, reverse engineering components, targeting 
the FCC so we can overcome restrictions on the release of and ability to 
get code [in practice], designing new hardware, etc.


If you understand and think about the underlying issues and start nit 
picking you'd quickly realize not only are we imperfect, but so is the 
wording on every other site. We still don't have any free laptops. 
Utilizing the word free to describe almost any laptop would be 
technically wrong [including systems with LibreBoot]. I can think of one 
exception and that is the Ben NanoNote [if this even counts as a laptop, 
I wouldn't call it that]. The next best thing is going to be the Libre 
Tea Computer Card when combined with the related laptop housing 
components [also free] and that's only happening because we've been 
sponsoring its development and working with Luke on it for years. Why 
this is better is because we have the complete set of code for numerous 
components including microcode, keyboard/LCD controller firmware, 
bootloader, and more... so

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-23 Thread Adonay Felipe Nogueira


Just now, I **have** subscribed to Parabola's dev mailing list. So I'll
try to catch-up with this topic. :)

I'm inserting libreplanet-discuss and trisquel-users mailing lists as
recipients of this email because of my opinion on Tiberiu-Cezar
Tehnoetic's message
().

I'm also inserting a member of ThinkPenguin as recipient so as to let
him know the issue found by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic, which is discussed
furthermore in this email.

I agree with Paul Kocialkowski's original message
().
Furthermore, my **last** edit in the original pad
() is perhaps
the most correct one (if the timeslider references don't change over
time, it should be
, 
saved July 24th, 2016. After this version, the misleading text gets 
added).


About Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic's message
():
Indeed, the use of "free software friendly" to also mean "fully free
software" or "freedom-respecting" is a communication noise (article on
Wikipedia: ).
Basically, in context of marketing (not sales), a communication noise
happens when **either** the senders or receivers of a message
distort-or-misunderstand the message.

Besides, I'm inserting a member of ThinkPenguin as recipient of this
email so as to let him know the issue that Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic found
in ThinkPenguin's website content. This was done so as to make it easier
for ThinkPenguin to see the issue. This **is not** meant to be taken
offensively.

Regarding the difference between FSF's RYF-certification and "true"
"respects your freedom" (as pointed out by Paul Kocialkowski on
): I
don't work for the FSF, and I don't speak for them, but I've been
studying the purpose of RYF for some time, and so far I noticed that RYF
certification is meant to say the following message to society: this
products are certified because, by default, they come with **maximum**
free/libre software that our movement recognizes as free/libre, **up to
where free/libre software is known to exist for**, or up to where
there's no technological limitations as to how to interact with such
software (this **differs** from "digital handcuffs).

Rephrasing the previous paragraph: According to what I have researched
so far, the idea of RYF certification **is-not** to say that these
products are "freedom respecting" in a binary (0 or 1; true or false)
scale, but in a gradual scale (which assumes that, once a new free/libre
software is known to work inside secondary embedded processors (e.g.:
some storage devices, some keyboards, some mouses), then the
already-certified products will be given a time limit to provide an
improved version that uses/provides the newly found free/libre
software).

On the ambiguity of "free software
friendly" 
(): I 
agree that "compatible with fully free operating systems" should be used 
instead. Personally, I have caught **myself** using "free software 
friendly" sometimes, although I use the other one in most cases. 
Besides, using the same reference: I think that the text on GNU.org 
about free/libre hardware designs serves as definitive definition to the 
hardware scenario. However, as noted on the articles there, it's not 
something easy to deny usage of hardware with non-free designs since 
there's no know hardware with free/libre design for use that enables 
society to do their computing in freedom.


And "RYF certified" can be included inside "free software friendly"
although care must be taken so as not to make the public think that they
are the same, just as it happens in the case of "open source software"
vs. "free/libre software".
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-22 Thread Isaac David



Le mer. 17 août 2016 à 14:16, Isaac David 
 a écrit :

I have copied the full Markdown text to a collaborative pad:

https://pad.partidopirata.com.ar/p/parabola-eoma

Everyone can join and help revise it there, or bring it to this thread
plus your changes and comments.


either not too many people showed up or it didn't take too
many changes to get the wording right.

the campaign is almost over but i think this is still worth
tightening up, even if just for posterity.

if nobody objects to, over the next couple days i'm going to
add what is currently on the pad. i'm cc'ing koz, emulatorman
and adfeno because they were involved in the drafting of the
original news item, if memory serves me right.

--
isacdaavid

___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-19 Thread Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 20:15:00 +0100
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton  wrote:

> the PCB layout file - the complex part that, if somebody were to use
> it to **RIGHT NOW** place an order for 500 PCBs thus throwing this
> entire campaign into jeapoardy yes.
I never designed a PCB, so I've no idea if the "PCB layout file" is
enough to fab a board, or if you also need to adjust/tune the tools at
the factory somehow before making a big run.

However I don't see why some competitor would bother producing boards
right now.

See "Developing an Open Source Laptop" at 18 min 55s for a real world
example.

References:
---
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oVS8CCdSAs
The video can be downloaded with youtube-dl.

Denis.


pgpClTXaGs3fr.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-19 Thread Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 10:31:50 +0300
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic  wrote:

> To draw a parallel between "free software friendly" and
> "eco-friendly", yes, I believe Purism has pioneered the practice of
> "software freedom washing", similar to greenwashing :-)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing
Indeed, "free software friendly" is way too vague.
It could be applied to almost any hardware (or software) that can run
some free software somehow.
Any hardware or software which permits or promotes the use of free
software on or with it could be called "free software friendly".

We could instead use some other terms such as:
1) Fully compatible with free software: It fits well RYF hardware.
2) Can run fully free software: It fits more the EOMA68.

However we should make it clear enough for people not to make confusion
between (1) and (2).

Denis.


pgp3liSMqVDxv.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-17 Thread Isaac David



Le mer. 17 août 2016 à 13:25, Paul Kocialkowski  a 
écrit :
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?


I have copied the full Markdown text to a collaborative pad:

https://pad.partidopirata.com.ar/p/parabola-eoma

LibreJS users will notice some scripts are blocked, but it is OK to
accept them, they are free like the rest of Etherpad.

Everyone can join and help revise it there, or bring it to this thread
plus your changes and comments.

--
isacdaavid

___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-17 Thread Paul Kocialkowski

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

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-16 Thread pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

On 08/16/2016 09:06 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:
>> Using the term does not go
>> against the free software principles IMHO like many of the “words to
>> avoid” do.
> 
> Thank you for your opinion. Still, don't you think that if people
> consider to be OK the hardware labeled as "free software friendly", then
> this undermines the importance of high priority projects such as
> Libreboot (free BIOS) and Lima/Tamil (free GPU drivers)?
> 

We could probably list better words for each use case of “free software
friendly”: “Hardware that is compatible with free software”, “free
hardware”, etc. My concern however is that with this precedent, every
fuzzy word would need to be added to the list of “words to avoid”.

> PS As previously stated, I'm not a Parabola hacker and I only speak for
> myself. My opinion shouldn't count for the consensus.
> 

Me neither.

___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-16 Thread Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic

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

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-16 Thread Josh Branning


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?


___

... 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).

___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

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.

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".

-- 
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

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-16 Thread Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic

On 16.08.2016 21:34, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> On 08/16/2016 06:40 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:
>> "Friendly" might have a definition:
>> * (in compounds) Not damaging to, or compatible with (the compounded
>> noun) E.g. bike-friendly, soil-friendly, dolphin-friendly
>> - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/friendly#English
>>
>> IMO, this definition points to _compatibility_ for technology (bike is
>> technology, software is technology). So according to that definition, I
>> conclude that "free software friendly" would mean "compatible with free
>> software".
>>
>> Now let's see where we draw the line. Is the RaspberryPi free software
>> friendly, in other words compatible with free software?
>>
>> There is no definition for "free software friendly". And people
>> understandably (looking or not at the definition of "friendly") tend to
>> consider it synonymous to "software freedom-respecting", and JoshB
>> confirmed the rule.
>>
>> What other people think?
>>
> 
> There are people (such as you) who consider it possible for “free
> software friendly” to be applied to the Raspberry Pi. The term is
> imprecise. The “line” between friendly and not friendly is fuzzy.
> Readers do not know what the author means.

I agree.

> Clear wording just seems more appropriate. (“Respects your
> freedom” would be equally fuzzy if it were not certified according to
> clear criteria.)

I agree.

> Using the term does not go
> against the free software principles IMHO like many of the “words to
> avoid” do.

Thank you for your opinion. Still, don't you think that if people
consider to be OK the hardware labeled as "free software friendly", then
this undermines the importance of high priority projects such as
Libreboot (free BIOS) and Lima/Tamil (free GPU drivers)?

> On another note, if there is a promise to make the PCB free in the
> future, maybe it is best to mention this once confirmed.

I agree.

Thanks,
Tiberiu

PS As previously stated, I'm not a Parabola hacker and I only speak for
myself. My opinion shouldn't count for the consensus.

--
https://ceata.org
https://tehnoetic.com
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-16 Thread pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

On 08/16/2016 06:40 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:
> "Friendly" might have a definition:
> * (in compounds) Not damaging to, or compatible with (the compounded
> noun) E.g. bike-friendly, soil-friendly, dolphin-friendly
> - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/friendly#English
> 
> IMO, this definition points to _compatibility_ for technology (bike is
> technology, software is technology). So according to that definition, I
> conclude that "free software friendly" would mean "compatible with free
> software".
> 
> Now let's see where we draw the line. Is the RaspberryPi free software
> friendly, in other words compatible with free software?
> 
> There is no definition for "free software friendly". And people
> understandably (looking or not at the definition of "friendly") tend to
> consider it synonymous to "software freedom-respecting", and JoshB
> confirmed the rule.
> 
> What other people think?
> 

There are people (such as you) who consider it possible for “free
software friendly” to be applied to the Raspberry Pi. The term is
imprecise. The “line” between friendly and not friendly is fuzzy.
Readers do not know what the author means. Using the term does not go
against the free software principles IMHO like many of the “words to
avoid” do. Clear wording just seems more appropriate. (“Respects your
freedom” would be equally fuzzy if it were not certified according to
clear criteria.)

On another note, if there is a promise to make the PCB free in the
future, maybe it is best to mention this once confirmed.
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

Le mardi 16 août 2016 à 16:40 +0100, Josh Branning a écrit :
> On 16/08/16 16:22, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:
> > On 16.08.2016 17:57, Josh Branning wrote:
> > Quoting the designer, "Full schematics [are] available."
> > https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop
> > 
> > Please note that in the campaign's text he doesn't specify if the
> > schematics are available under a free license nor he links to the
> > schematics (but he specifies that for the "3D-printed casework design
> > files"; he says that those [are] available under GPLv3 license").
> > However, if this is the specification:
> > 
> > http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA-68
> > 
> > then I gather that it's under CC BY-SA 3.0. I couldn't find the
> > schematics PDF Luke was telling us about. Probably he will publish it
> > after his volunteers review it? I don't know.
> 
> I couldn't find them either. If they're CC BY-SA then I guess they are 
> free, and not just open or proprietary. But it's difficult to tell or 
> make any valid assumption without seeing them.

I think it's safe to assume "proprietary unless proven otherwise", since this
is, after all, how copyright works.

> > > In regards to free software friendly, it isn't 100%; totally, as there
> > > is no way to run the GPU using free software. And the same problem
> > > exists if one were to claim it 100% "respects your freedom", so I can't
> > > see how saying something is "free software friendly" is much better, as
> > > the same problem(s) exist(s) in both wordings.
> > 
> > I see your point. But I was asking more, if it makes sense to add "free
> > software friendly" to the list of words to avoid:
> > 
> > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html
> 
> I think "free software friendly" is fairly synonymous with "respecting 
> freedom".

I really don't think this is a subjective matter: words have a given meaning,
which can be vague or precise, but is well defined. Acting on how people
perceive wording by adding a layer of personal understanding makes it impossible
to draw a line.

> In the event that someone were to create a 100% "free software friendly" 

I don't think "100% free software friendly" makes any sense, because "friendly"
doesn't carry a precise enough meaning here. 

It's like saying that something is "100% easy to achieve": "easy" isn't precise
enough. On the other hand, "100% achievable with a single screwdriver" is.

-- 
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

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

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

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-16 Thread Josh Branning


On 16/08/16 16:22, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:

On 16.08.2016 17:57, Josh Branning wrote:

What do other people on this list think? Should we avoid using the term
"free software friendly" or there is no reason not to use it?


I think the article is misleading as it's written at the moment, (by
stating it's "libre hardware" rather than "with an open specification").


RMS recommends we avoid using "open" for anything related to computers,
in order to not seem we endorse the "open source" term and confuse users
regarding where we in the free software community stand in this
fundamental matter. This includes avoiding the term "open standards".
Instead, we should use "free standards" if the standard is published as
documentation under a free license.


Fair enough.



Maybe a better wording than "with an open specification" would be "with
publicly available schematics" (or "specification").


Or free schematics/specification.



Quoting the designer, "Full schematics [are] available."
https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop

Please note that in the campaign's text he doesn't specify if the
schematics are available under a free license nor he links to the
schematics (but he specifies that for the "3D-printed casework design
files"; he says that those [are] available under GPLv3 license").
However, if this is the specification:

http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA-68

then I gather that it's under CC BY-SA 3.0. I couldn't find the
schematics PDF Luke was telling us about. Probably he will publish it
after his volunteers review it? I don't know.


I couldn't find them either. If they're CC BY-SA then I guess they are 
free, and not just open or proprietary. But it's difficult to tell or 
make any valid assumption without seeing them.





In regards to free software friendly, it isn't 100%; totally, as there
is no way to run the GPU using free software. And the same problem
exists if one were to claim it 100% "respects your freedom", so I can't
see how saying something is "free software friendly" is much better, as
the same problem(s) exist(s) in both wordings.


I see your point. But I was asking more, if it makes sense to add "free
software friendly" to the list of words to avoid:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html



I think "free software friendly" is fairly synonymous with "respecting 
freedom". Of course, the FSF has made their certification program for 
specific devices for the latter.


In the event that someone were to create a 100% "free software friendly" 
device that for whatever reason didn't get through the FSF's 
certification process (they probably do exist), I would like to still be 
able to use the term "free software friendly" to describe the device.



Perhaps focusing on the positive features, like stating that it can boot
up using only free software, is pre-installed with parabola, etc.


I would also add here that the Embedded Controller is free software.


whilst
perhaps also admitting it's apparent flaws (like the lack of libre GPU
drivers), would be the most accurate, honest, and least deceptive way to
describe EOMA68 when writing an article on the subject.


I agree.

My question still stands, do someone share my opinion that "free
software friendly" should be avoided and added to the list of infamous
words to avoid? https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html


I don't necessarily share that opinion.

But I feel the article on parabola news should be updated if and when a 
consensus is reached.




Thanks,
Tiberiu

--
https://ceata.org
https://tehnoetic.com



___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-16 Thread Josh Branning


What do other people on this list think? Should we avoid using the term
"free software friendly" or there is no reason not to use it?


I think the article is misleading as it's written at the moment, (by 
stating it's "libre hardware" rather than "with an open specification").


In regards to free software friendly, it isn't 100%; totally, as there 
is no way to run the GPU using free software. And the same problem 
exists if one were to claim it 100% "respects your freedom", so I can't 
see how saying something is "free software friendly" is much better, as 
the same problem(s) exist(s) in both wordings.


Perhaps focusing on the positive features, like stating that it can boot 
up using only free software, is pre-installed with parabola, etc. whilst 
perhaps also admitting it's apparent flaws (like the lack of libre GPU 
drivers), would be the most accurate, honest, and least deceptive way to 
describe EOMA68 when writing an article on the subject. That and the 
"libre hardware" --> "open specification" correction.



Josh
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

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.

> To draw a parallel between "free software friendly" and "eco-friendly",
> yes, I believe Purism has pioneered the practice of "software freedom
> washing", similar to greenwashing :-)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing

I agree with this but again, don't see a problem. If Purism had said "free
software friendly" all along, it would have been fine IMO. Sadly, they did much,
much than claiming that.

-- 
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

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-16 Thread Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic

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".

Few examples:

User #1:

Free software friendly GPS? [...] that even RMS would approve of?
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/free-software-friendly-gps

User #2:

Free software friendly (Wireless) Gamepads [...] should work on a Linux
kernel without blobs (eg: Linux-libre, Debian GNU/Linux kernel, etc
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/free-software-friendly-wireless-gamepads

User #3:

Is Arduino Free software friendly? Re: The Arduino software is free software
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/arduino-free-software-friendly

Company #1:

Freedom Included - free software friendly hardware [...] Lemote Yeeloong
[...] the only laptop in the world that completely respects free
software - for example, it has modifiable copyleft boot firmware (bios),
and wifi that does not require binary blobs to work. It is the laptop
used by the founder of the GNU project and Free Software.
http://www.freedomincluded.com/

Company #2:

ThinkPenguin, Inc. is currently the only company with a significant
catalog selling free software friendly hardware. From wifi adapters and
printers to desktops and laptops. 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

Note: most if not all of their wifi adapters are freedom-respecting
(with or without RYF certification) but their laptops and desktops are
certainly not freedom-respecting since those use proprietary BIOS. To
them, all are "free software friendly" and, free software friendly =
FSF's RYF...

Company #3:

Talos is the world's first ATX-compatible, workstation-class mainboard
for the new, free-software friendly IBM POWER8 processor and architecture.
https://www.raptorengineering.com/TALOS/prerelease.php

Note: however, if the board is produced and sold, is guaranteed to
receive the FSF's RYF certification. Rean on.

Nonprofit #1:

Interested in a powerful, free software friendly workstation? -  Let
Raptor Engineering know that you would be interested in purchasing a
Talos Secure Workstation mainboard that runs only 100% free firmware and
software. [...] Raptor Engineering, is gauging public interest in a new
high-end workstation designed to run only free software.
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/interested-in-a-powerful-free-software-friendly-workstation

Nonprofit #2:

Linux: Free Software Friendly Graphics Card [...] completely open video
card [...] graphics card specifically for open source systems [...] so
that no one has to deal with anything closed source (BIOS included). The
goal here is to produce a graphics card which is a Free Software geek's
dream in terms of openness.
https://www.linux.com/news/linux-free-software-friendly-graphics-card

Nonprofit #3:

FSF certifies ThinkPenguin USB Wifi adapter with Atheros chip to be free
software friendly [...] The Free Software Foundation (FSF) today awarded
Respects Your Freedom (RYF) certification to the TPE-N150USB Wireless N
USB Adapter, sold by ThinkPenguin.
http://www.fsdaily.com/Community/FSF_certifies_ThinkPenguin_USB_Wifi_adapter_with_Atheros_chip_to_be_free_software_friendly

> So the question is whether it's good to use vague

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

Le lundi 15 août 2016 à 20:38 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton a écrit :
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Paul Kocialkowski  wrote:
> > 
> > Resending with the right address, please don't CC my Replicant address since
> > this is not directly related to Replicant.
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Le lundi 15 août 2016 à 20:15 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton a écrit :
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic 
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 15.08.2016 20:09, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > * "New Libre Hardware Crowdfunding Project"
> > > > > 
> > > > > Saying that the hardware is libre or free is an overstatement.
> > > > [...]
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think the title should be reworked, depending on whether the circuit
> > > > > board design is libre or not.
> > > > 
> > > > I agree. AFAIR the circuit board design is being withheld for now,
> > > 
> > > that's incorrect.. or misleading.  the PCB SCHematic file is available
> > > as a PDF and i have only just, a few hours ago, asked people to aid
> > > and assist in a review.
> > 
> > A pdf schematics is documentation about the hardware, it is not a source
> > format
> > of the circuit board design. It does not make the circuit board free.
> 
>  *sigh*.  there are variants available if you look.  there's even a
> GPL'd KiCAD repository available with an early design.  KiCAD turned
> out to be a waste of time so i was forced to use proprietary software
> as it contains the necessary design rules verification for
> inexperienced PCB design engineers to do a decent job.  the files are
> huge, i can't maintain git revision control on them properly, and i'm
> annoyed about it.

Those details are not very relevant here. The question is whether the source
form of the circuit board as sold are free or not. Based on the elements I grasp
from your answers and what was reported in this thread, the answer is visibly
no.

I don't want to waste your time here, so either I'm wrong and those sources are
free, either I'm not wrong and they're not.

Please make it clear if I'm wrong, otherwise there is no further need to discuss
this matter.

>  apologies paul - i'm tired, i'm massively stretched, i'm reaching a
> threshold on what i can cope with, so i'm winding down answers so i
> can conserve energy to get the hundreds of tasks needed to be
> completed prepared and up and running.

I understand -- what I'm asking calls for a binary yes/no answer here, no need
for any long explanation.

>  if you or anybody else would like to help with that, i am more than
> happy to give them all the access to whatever they want so it can get
> done.

I'm sure what "that" refers to. You said you don't want these sources released
at this point (unless I misunderstood). What is there left for us to do?

-- 
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

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-15 Thread Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic



On 15.08.2016 22:15, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> ---
> crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic  
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm not a Parabola hacker and I only speak for myself. I believe Paul
>> refers to this news entry at parabola.nu:
>>
>> https://www.parabola.nu/news/new-libre-hardware-crowdfunding-project-with-parabola-pre-installed/
>>
>> On 15.08.2016 20:09, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
>>> * "New Libre Hardware Crowdfunding Project"
>>>
>>> Saying that the hardware is libre or free is an overstatement.
>> [...]
>>> I think the title should be reworked, depending on whether the circuit board
>>> design is libre or not.
>>
>> I agree. AFAIR the circuit board design is being withheld for now,
> 
> 
> that's incorrect.. or misleading.  the PCB SCHematic file is available
> as a PDF and i have only just, a few hours ago, asked people to aid
> and assist in a review.
> 
> the PCB layout file - the complex part that, if somebody were to use
> it to **RIGHT NOW** place an order for 500 PCBs thus throwing this
> entire campaign into jeapoardy yes.

Thank you for the response, Luke. Please note that in his original
message on this thread, Paul specifically asked about the design source
files and not the schematics.

On 15.08.2016 20:09, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> The circuit board may be libre, but I couldn't find the circuit board
> layout description files. Note that schematics don't make the circuit
> board libre, but only documented.

That is why I believe my statement you quoted above is correct and not
misleading (especially in the context of Paul's question).

Thanks,
Tiberiu

--
https://ceata.org
https://tehnoetic.com
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

Resending with the right address, please don't CC my Replicant address since
this is not directly related to Replicant.

Hi,

Le lundi 15 août 2016 à 20:15 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton a écrit :
> 
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic 
> wrote:
> > 
> > On 15.08.2016 20:09, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > * "New Libre Hardware Crowdfunding Project"
> > > 
> > > Saying that the hardware is libre or free is an overstatement.
> > [...]
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I think the title should be reworked, depending on whether the circuit
> > > board design is libre or not.
> > 
> > I agree. AFAIR the circuit board design is being withheld for now,
> 
> that's incorrect.. or misleading.  the PCB SCHematic file is available
> as a PDF and i have only just, a few hours ago, asked people to aid
> and assist in a review.

A pdf schematics is documentation about the hardware, it is not a source format
of the circuit board design. It does not make the circuit board free.

> 
> the PCB layout file - the complex part that, if somebody were to use
> it to **RIGHT NOW** place an order for 500 PCBs thus throwing this
> entire campaign into jeapoardy yes.

Then it is fair to say that the circuit board design is not free at this point
but may be freed later.

-- 
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

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

Resending with the right address, please don't CC my Replicant address since
this is not directly related to Replicant.

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".

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.

-- 
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

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

Resending with the right address, please don't CC my Replicant address since
this is not directly related to Replicant.

Hi,

Le lundi 15 août 2016 à 21:04 +0300, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic a écrit :
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm not a Parabola hacker and I only speak for myself. I believe Paul
> refers to this news entry at parabola.nu:
> 
> https://www.parabola.nu/news/new-libre-hardware-crowdfunding-project-with-para
> bola-pre-installed/

That is correct, thanks for pointing it out, I forgot to mention it.

> 
> On 15.08.2016 20:09, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > * "New Libre Hardware Crowdfunding Project"
> > 
> > Saying that the hardware is libre or free is an overstatement.
> [...]
> > 
> > 
> > I think the title should be reworked, depending on whether the circuit board
> > design is libre or not.
> 
> I agree. AFAIR the circuit board design is being withheld for now, and
> the designer has promised to release it at a later date (presumably
> under a libre license).
> 
> Quoting from the campaign page:
> 
> "The only exception to this rule to release everything in advance is the
> PCB CAD files for the Computer Card. We’re planning to release the PCB
> CAD files for the Computer card once sufficient units are hit that
> ensures any third party manufacturing runs will not undermine the
> project’s development or stability."
> - https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop

Good to know! Then I feel that the blog post should either state that or not
comment on the hardware aspects.

> 
> > 
> > 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.

Specific points about the A20 platform can be dug out from:
http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/single-board-computers

> 
> > 
> > Of course, this situation is much better than many other computers out
> > there,
> > that can't even startup without proprietary software.
> 
> I agree. Instead of using the term "software-freedom-respecting" or
> saying it "respects your freedom" or that it "respects your software
> freedom", probably a better choice of words and accurate presentation is
> that this hardware is RYF-certifiable by FSF or that it has been allowed
> by FSF the provisional use of the RYF certification mark, to quote Joshua:
> 
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2016-06/msg00213.html

Yes, that is fine too IMO.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-15 Thread Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not a Parabola hacker and I only speak for myself. I believe Paul
> refers to this news entry at parabola.nu:
>
> https://www.parabola.nu/news/new-libre-hardware-crowdfunding-project-with-parabola-pre-installed/
>
> On 15.08.2016 20:09, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
>> * "New Libre Hardware Crowdfunding Project"
>>
>> Saying that the hardware is libre or free is an overstatement.
> [...]
>> I think the title should be reworked, depending on whether the circuit board
>> design is libre or not.
>
> I agree. AFAIR the circuit board design is being withheld for now,

that's incorrect.. or misleading.  the PCB SCHematic file is available
as a PDF and i have only just, a few hours ago, asked people to aid
and assist in a review.

the PCB layout file - the complex part that, if somebody were to use
it to **RIGHT NOW** place an order for 500 PCBs thus throwing this
entire campaign into jeapoardy yes.

l.
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

2016-08-15 Thread Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic

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 can draw a parallel between "free-software-friendly" hardware and
Android as "open-source" system. Although "open-source" has a
definition, it's a long definition of 10 points and OSI intentionally is
lax with the use of this term, to offer companies an alternative to the
strict free software term defined and protected by FSF, to avoid the
misleading of users.

Thanks,
Tiberiu

--
https://ceata.org
https://tehnoetic.com
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news