Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The GNU ethical repository criteria will only harm free software.

[Thomas HARDING]

On 30/10/2015 05:08, arthur_torrey@comcast.net 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 
> good.....
>
> 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!
>
> ART
> ------------------don't
> Arthur Torrey - <arthur_torrey@comcast.net>


> >
>> [...]
> > 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
> certification.

[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]

So,

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>)]

   **AND/OR AT OPTION**,

 * 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,
T.HARDING

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