Re: RYF can, and should, be improved

[Jean Louis]

* Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss <libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> 
[2022-01-05 05:15]:
> I have now written a formal policy for the Libreboot project:
> 
> https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html
> 
> I have also written one for my parallel fork that I maintain, based on
> Libreboot:
> 
> https://osboot.org/news/policy.html

On this following chapter about problems with RYF criteria, I am in
agreement. On the other hand your OSBoot policy is hypocrisy to
Libreboot policies. You are sitting on two chairs.

> Problems with RYF criteria

> [link]

> You can read those guidelines by following these hyperlinks:

> * GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG)
> * FSF Respects Your Freedom (RYF) guidelines

> The FSF RYF guidelines state the following:

> “However, there is one exception for secondary embedded
> processors. The exception applies to software delivered inside
> auxiliary and low-level processors and FPGAs, within which software
> installation is not intended after the user obtains the product. This
> can include, for instance, microcode inside a processor, firmware
> built into an I/O device, or the gate pattern of an FPGA. The software
> in such secondary processors does not count as product software.”

> This is absolute pure nonsense, and should be rejected on ideological
> grounds. The rest of libreboot’s policy and overall ideology
> expressed, in this article, will be based largely on that
> rejection. The term product software is completely asinine; software
> is software, and software should always be free. Instead of making
> such exceptions, more hardware should be encouraged, with help given
> to provide as much freedom as possible, while providing education to
> users about any pitfalls they may encounter, and encourage freedom at
> all levels. When an organisation like the FSF makes such bold
> exceptions as above, it sends the wrong message, by telling people
> essentially to sweep these other problems under the rug, just because
> they involve software that happens to run on a “secondary
> processor”. If the software is possible to update by the user, then it
> should be free, regardless of whether the manufacturer intended for it
> to be upgraded or not. Where it really isn’t possible to update such
> software, proprietary or not, advice should be given to that
> effect. Education is important, and the FSF’s criteria actively
> discourages such education; it creates a false hope that everything is
> great and wonderful, just because the software on one arbitrary level
> is all free.



-- 
Thanks,
Jean Louis

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns