[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The GNU ethical repository criteria will only

From: Thomas HARDING
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The GNU ethical repository criteria will only harm free software.
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 00:44:56 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0

On 30/10/2015 05:08, wrote:

I'm not surprised that you don't know of cases where the labeling question has 
been a deciding factor, since given the RYF restrictions I'd consider a 
manufacturer that wanted to be able to sell to Windows users to be crazy to 
even apply....  They would get to the page and see that it wouldn't do them any 

I'm not saying that RYF has to change, though I think it should... I am saying 
that we need a NON-DISCRIMINATORY 'Runs on GNU/Linux' badge program with logos 
that can be put on products NEXT to the 'Runs on other stuff' badges!

Arthur Torrey - <>

>> [...]
because of that restriction. As a hardware consumer I am HURT, because
in most cases I can't look at a product box and see a 'Runs on
GNU/Linux' label next to the 'Runs on <other system>' label. The Free
Software world is HURT because the proprietary system user never gets
to see that he can use his hardware under GNU/Linux as well as the
proprietary system....

FWIW, that's not quite what that criterion says. Compatibility labeling
for proprietary OSes is allowed under RYF. ("However, we don't object to
clear factual statements informing the user that the product also works
with specific proprietary operating systems.") What's not allowed is
promotional labeling for proprietary OSes, which makes sense, given the
purposes of the program.

I also know of no cases where this has been a deciding factor in

[I'm a bit puzzled by that discussion, and sick for a week, so if missed something please forgive... last but not least I'm not fluent
in English]


Maybe making an obligation to label "Fully Works with genuine GNU/linux, without proprietary kernel blobs nor other proprietary [anything]"

and the correspondant label *to be as prominent as ANY other [OSes] labels on the package* and other materials such as website or [anything] regarding any other [proprietary] labels would NOT work. Because what we really need is a clear information and avoiding REAL discriminent labelling on packaging/sites/whatever.

IMHO, a pretty good APPROVED labelling / with GNU Project endorsement before use (and/or, making abuses suitables), clearly stating :

 * that the device *works plainly* (tipycally, 3d video cards)
   with GNU GPLv2 Linux kernel - no blobs, GVPLv3 - no patents,
   AGPLv3 (ready-to-use servers or connected devices, ...)",
   *furbished with human readable  sources* and [-same exigences-
   Free Software [eg: current GNU project chain] re-buildable.
   And furbished builded binaries (ready for x, y and z architectures
   "only" clearly stated).

   That would also *allow* LGPL devels "by exception", or, better,
   source+protocols disclosure to only "legitimate users"  where
   [governement and international organisations protocols / security
    policies are involved -- use case: NSA, NATO, governments, has some
    of that kind / the user is also exclusively [cited] / specs
    dissemination are not desirable... with for exception peer review
    (reasonment clash <g>)]


 * clearly differenciated label from the above : "having I/O fully
   disclosed, published (cvs/so on, tarball address) and furbished
   together with on included media [as builded and micro-programmed,
   from first version up to that hardware revision], ready for Free
   Software DEVEL",

without *a bunch of* discriminally prominent labels [proprietary
or not] (which is equal and fair, but full "non-prominent" close is
foolish, and "as clearly visible as other OSes than the first market targetted" is good enough).

That really do the trick.

Special label "Works BEST with GNU/Linux (and Open/Net/FreeBSD [...]
if they would involve; same statements as upper)" could be endorsed
by GNU project, and Linux/BSD/FreeDOS/whatever distributions

eg: despite wars against availability of non-free section, Debian
is available with several kernels, including GNU Mach/?[Ooops: personal memory leak] and FreeBSD, with a reasonable effort, balancing publishing
latch and volunteers.

That's what User Freedom of Choice[1] is -- at least for me.


I have been puzzled personnally by policy changes vendors regarding GNU/Linux support several times.

Especially with a scanner, which needs a proprietary add-on module on SANE to make it works, obviously unavailable on the targetted NSLU-2 I planned to use as scanner server, nevertheless, a Free Software package has been distributed together with for user interface... And the vendor appointed company couldn't disclose...

  * *

In short: make information clear and *non-discriminent* on *real Free Software support* /is the priority/, because *it will avoid the current
and actual market distorsion* and both "false Free Software support".

 * fair harware market
 * fair software market
 * fair end user information
 * fair hardware support developpement
 * fair user support regarding fully free operating systems
 * fair user support regarding foolish non-free operating systems...
 * fair choice offer
 * fair labelling

Once done, User Freedom will follow and most likely user will naturally
choose what is the best for him: the warranty given to his freedoms,
coupled to a fully functional device. Because the easy choice is what
appears as fully functional (nowadays it could likely change a bit with the Wolksvagen's pollute cheater microprogram[2], but it seems nobody asks appropriateness of other cars manufacturers, nor systems, nor generally
any problem).

*Fair* is the keyword... prominent is not: Free Software advocacy and goals are not "total market domination", as that is /we/ struggle for : they are all the *fair* ways to gain Plain Freedom (at least on what is
computing driven).

[1]French people will appreciate "UFC" acronym collision, which is
   "UFC - Que Choisir", the largest consumer association here
   (fr::Union Fédérale des Consommateurs --- Que Choisir ?).
[2]What Dr.HC. Richard M. Stallman says for year: proprietary
   programs can intentionally cheat you [les programmes
   privateurs peuvent vous mentir --- intentionnellement]

Best Regards,

Je suis née pour partager : non la haine, mais l'amour.
                           "Antigone" --- 442 Av. JC.
Two Steps From Heaven: Universal answer is Fortitude.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]