0
0

Let's talk about Respect Your Freedom's more controversial requirements (self.linux)

submitted by a_tsunami_of_rodents

Here's the full list to read at your pleasure, I'll take out the intresting parts which you might find surprising:

Non free software inside ROM becomes free

The RYF criteria along with a pattern that the FSF follows indicate that the same software if put into non-writable memory no longer has to be accompanied with the source code. So basically, if your firmware can be updated the firmware needs to be free, otherwise it doesn't. This leads to an unusual situation that you can take a non free product, sabotage the part of the hardware that controls writes, thus objectively taking a freedom away from the consumer, and then arriving at a free product accoridng to this definition.

Free software which can only be compiled with nonfree compilers isn't free enough

Not only must the software be free, it must be written in a language which has a free compiler, this is an interesting new dimension that the FSF has added that wasn't there before. So GPL licenced software that is written in a programming language that does not yet have a free compiler cannot be inncluded. Not objectionable per se, but important to note that the FSF has added a new meta-layer to consider. This also means that the code cannot use any language extensions only supported in a proprietary compiler until it is re-implemented and this also possibly means that a version control system to store the code that is non-free cannot be used. So basically Linux before they moved to Git when they used a proprietary but open source version control system would not count.

Do not offer any temptation

You cannot have labels or symbols which could be construed as an endorsement for proprietary software.

Freedom entails participating in the FSF's terminology warfare

Now here's the most controvesial and interesting one, to meet the certificate, you amongst other such things can't use the word "Linux" to refer to anything but the kernel and in general you have to conform to the FSF's terminology on matters. This goes so far as that they cannot call the OS they install 'a system with the Linux kernel or any other term that mentions "Linux" without "GNU"'... products that use "open source" instead of "free software and say they sell "a system with the linux kernel" however truthfully apparently do not respect your freedom. I have to say, I do wonder, what if they sell Void Linux with syslinux, busybox, musl and dash as default shell. I don't think you can rightfully call that "GNU/Linux" any more.

I'd say that some of those requirements for RYF are quaestionable to say the least. Especially the last one, requiring sellers to get involved into the FSF's terminology war as part of obtaining a certificate that says 'respect your freedom' seems like some-what of an abuse to me.

all 10 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]singpolyma 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Given that RYF means "endorsed by FSF" then of course you can't use terms or anything else they dislike. That's how you get advertising endorsements in any case, by submitting to the will of the endorser.

[–]a_tsunami_of_rodents[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

And like all advertisements, the name is deceptively chosen, "respect your freedom" communicates an entirely different thing than "fights political terminology wars for the FSF as well", people certainly have a right to criticize the FSF on that.

[–]singpolyma 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Do you reject the idea that RYF-certified devices respect freedom? Independent of anything else they may also do?

[–]a_tsunami_of_rodents[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No? That's not what deceptive advertisement means. Deceptive advertisements are almost always not technical lies, they are deceptions, the art of giving people the wrong impression by telling the technical truth.

Like, I remember sitting in a biology class being 15 or something and we were talking about some health drink that contained some bacterium which the ad claimed was scientifically proven to contribute to whatever thing related to digestion. And the biology teacher said that while that was true, the bacterium was already in any human being's digestive tract and adding more does nothing. They're technically telling the truth, but they know damned well they're giving people a different impression.

And so does the FSF. They know damned well that people are going to assume if a certificate is called "respects your freedom" that that is all it needs to do to obtain it, not other things like being involved the FSF's credit wars. It's a lie by omission, it's being in the full knowledge that a party has a mistaken belief and electing to let the mistaken belief continue to exist rather than clearing it up.

[–]xillin 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Point 1 and 2 are not controversial and not new: You get to enjoy the 4 freedoms for any software that can be changed. Worrying about modification rights for firmware that can physically not be modified is a waste of time.

Point 3 and 4 is mostly you complaining that the certificate should be called "endorsed by the fsf" and not a nicer short phrase... pedantic not controversial.

[–]ssssam 1 point2 points  (0 children)

TIL: RMS runs Windows from a live CD.

[–]a_tsunami_of_rodents[S] -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

You seem to mistake "I don't disagree with it" for "not controversial", you know that by definition something is controversial if a significant group of people, whom you may not be part of disagree right.

The entire term "GNU/Linux" is controversial, as well as the term "Linux" for anything else than the kernel. That's sort of what you have when stuff is split 50/50.

Also:

Worrying about modification rights for firmware that can physically not be modified is a waste of time.

It's not about worrying, it's about the troublesome situation that this repraesents that theoretically they could just dump nonfree software on a spinning disk, physically destroy the controller needed for writing, call it a form of ROM and claim freedom. Which is obviously very much unintended subterfuge but technically meets the definition. I doubt the FSF would accept that and immediately amend their definition to stop the subterfuge, but where do you draw the line?

[–]xillin -1 points0 points  (1 child)

you know that by definition something is controversial if a significant group of people, whom you may not be part of disagree right.

No, your definition misses that people have to care. Pinneapple on pizza might have been controversial at some point but now is just a matter of taste. All of your points have not been new for decades.

[–]a_tsunami_of_rodents[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, that's true, they have to care. It doesn't matter though, it's well known that people do care and emotions run high during this debate.

All of your points have not been new for decades.

Whether it is new or not is irrelevant, I said they were controversial, not new.

The point is, in another topic most people seemed completely unaware of the exact criteria of RYF including the ones a lot of people might very well object to.

[–]MrAlagos -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

It's useless bullshit like most of the FSF's propaganda.