Weekly Edition
Return to the Front page
| |||||||||||||
How not to recognize free hardware
Your editor has often written about the value of open, hackable devices.
Users of such hardware can customize it to their needs, remove
antifeatures, improve security, and make it do things which the manufacturer
never contemplated. Open hardware is thus more valuable than the
locked-down variety. Unfortunately, open hardware is discouragingly rare;
it can also be hard to find even when it exists. Open and closed variants
of a specific device are often sold under similar (or identical) names and
packaging, making purchasing it a risky affair.
There would be obvious value to a mechanism by which hardware purchasers could know which products are truly open without having to dig around on the net or risk buying the wrong device. There is clearly interest in this information; look at the extensive lists of routers which can run distributions like OpenWRT, for example, or the long list of Android phones offered through online auction sites which are marked as being rooted. But hardware is, for all practical purposes, never labeled as being open in a useful way, even when the hardware is indeed open. There is an information gap here: manufacturers are not informing their customers of an attribute which could make their products more appealing. With that in mind, your editor looked at the Free Software Foundation's recently-announced endorsement criteria for its new "Respects Your Freedom" mark. Attempts to identify free-software-friendly hardware have come and gone in the past, but the FSF might just have the staying power to make something stick. Unfortunately, in your editor's opinion, this initiative is flawed in a way which has doomed a number of FSF initiatives. Someday we may have a mark which makes open hardware easy to identify, but it won't be this one. There is much that is good in the FSF's criteria. At the beginning is the obvious requirement that the device should work with 100% free software - though even the FSF makes exceptions for "auxiliary processors." So a cellular handset, with a closed baseband processor, should still qualify. It must also be possible to replace the running software using only free tools; devices with locked-down memory or cryptographic signature verification need not apply. These requirements are an obvious description of what's required for a piece of hardware to be truly open. Interestingly, the device is allowed to implement DRM mechanisms - but only in free software, so the DRM can be removed by a suitably skilled and motivated user. On the other hand, the device is not allowed to phone home with identify or location information except when the user has asked for that behavior. One could argue that, for the purposes of judging the openness of hardware, phoning home could be seen in the same light as DRM: OK as long as it can be ripped out of the device. If the goal is "respects your freedoms," though, it is not that hard to make a case for mandating more respectful treatment of personal information from the outset. So far so good. Consider, though, this aspect of the "100% free software" requirement:
This applies to all software that the seller includes in the
product, or provides with the product, or recommends for use in
conjunction with the product, or steers users towards installation
in the product... By way of explanation, a general-purpose
facility for installing other programs, with which the choice of
programs to install comes directly from the user, is not considered
to steer users toward anything in particular. However, if the
facility typically suggests installation particular programs, then
it steers users towards those programs.
The FSF has never been content to work toward the creation of free software and advocacy for its use; it has also made an overt effort to ensure that, like an Orwellian "unperson," proprietary software is never even mentioned. So a mobile device running a system like MeeGo might qualify for the FSF's endorsement, assuming it's open, lacking binary drivers, etc. But if the application installer lists a popular proprietary Flash plugin or network telephony application, it may be deemed to be "steering users" toward non-free code. That would cost it the endorsement, despite the fact that it's a fully open and respectful device. Let it be said: your editor does not believe that "respect your freedoms" includes hiding information about available options. Free software should be able to win on its own merits; it doesn't require attempts to create ignorance about proprietary alternatives. Viewing users as needing to be "steered" in the right direction does not seem respectful. This requirement, alone, is probably enough to drive otherwise friendly manufacturers away from seeking endorsement for any kind of device which will have an associated application store. But it gets worse:
Any product-related materials that mention the FSF endorsement must
not also carry endorsements or badges related to proprietary
software, such as "Works with Windows" or "Made for Mac" badges,
because these would give an appearance of legitimacy to those
products, and may make users think the product requires them.
It's a rare manufacturer indeed who will not mark a Windows-compatible product as being compatible with Windows. A requirement like this would force such a manufacturer to sell the same product in two different packages - an expense that is unlikely to be made up through extra sales of FSF-endorsed devices. Manufacturers cannot usually afford to ignore the existence of large, lucrative markets, so they will inevitably decide to do without the FSF endorsement, even if their product would otherwise qualify. Finally, the criteria require "cooperation with FSF and GNU public relations," described this way:
The seller must use FSF approved terminology for the FSF's
activities and work, in all statements and publications relating to
the product. This includes product packaging, and manuals, web
pages, marketing materials, and interviews about the
product. Specifically, the seller must use the term "GNU/Linux" for
any reference to an entire operating system which includes GNU and
Linux, and not mislead with "Linux" or "Linux-based system" or "a
system with the Linux kernel." And the seller must talk about "free
software" more prominently than "open source."
This requirement has little to do with respect for a user's freedoms and everything to do with promoting the FSF's particular agenda and world view. To obtain the FSF's endorsement for a specific device, a company must train all of its representatives in the use of Stallmanesqe newspeak. It is a mixing of two entirely different objectives - promoting open hardware and promoting the FSF's world view - that seems likely to be detrimental to both. Companies have learned to be careful in how they use each others' trademarks, but that does not extend to wider restrictions on "approved terminology." One can easily see a corporate lawyer balking at such a requirement; as a result, an endorsement mark which would have carried the FSF's name and URL will not appear. We owe a lot to the Free Software Foundation for helping to make the free software explosion happen when it did. Without the FSF, things would have happened differently and more slowly, and the world would certainly have been worse. The FSF still serves an important role; we need a no-compromises advocate for free software out there. But, by conflating free software with control over language and options, the FSF often seems to work counter to its stated goals. That is certainly the case here; your editor predicts that the number of products carrying the FSF's endorsement will be easily counted without running out of fingers. An opportunity to recognize and promote freedom-supporting hardware has been lost, and that is a sad thing. (Log in to post comments)
Many open android tablet devices Posted Oct 21, 2010 1:16 UTC (Thu) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
I agree, neither manufacturers nor sellers are doing a good job of highlighting some very open devices.
I have just had the experience of purchasing two cheap android tablets ($100 & $200), which are indeed likely open by most of the criteria which you highlight as being relevant. But this was very hard for me to figure out. The manufacturers for most of these devices do not even have a US presence, so it is hard to get any info form them (Chinese web sites in Chinese). The sellers don't seem to understand this value either and do not highlight it. The only way to figure it out is to correctly identify the device (which can be very hard in itself with all the lookalike models), and to find the right forum for the device, likely on slatedroid or the XDA forums. On these forums, you will need to spend hours reading many posts about the device to eventually conclude that perhaps, the device is indeed open (surprisingly most of them are).
Many open android tablet devices Posted Oct 21, 2010 19:21 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
As you say, the documentation of what ones are open is hard to find. so can you say what ones you found?
Many open android tablet devices Posted Oct 21, 2010 19:41 UTC (Thu) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] The new ZT-180 based 10" tablets are open, including a linux based USB loader which someone released last Friday (I successfully flashed mine with it). The 7" inch (VIA8508 and WM8505) ones I think are all open, I think the Rockchip ones are also. Many of these are considered Eken M00x clones or mine is a FlyTouch clone I believe. They load via a uboot script folder placed on the sdcard. Do fact check yourself before ordering. :) There really isn't a lot of hardware on the devices to struggle with device support problems. Most of them use an RT2070 or 3070 wifi USB dongle, linux kernel support. I think they all meet the "Open Device Level 0" criteria in my other post, and most meet the Freedom 1.1 criteria of Level 1 also. I have no idea if they meet Freedom 1.2, they might. No modem -> no modem processors, perhaps thers is firmware on the wifi? Feel free to email me via slatedroid if you need more specifics (same username w/ caps). Boy do I wish LWN supported user emailing!
Many open android tablet devices Posted Nov 10, 2010 1:21 UTC (Wed) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
I believe I may have overstated the openness of these devices. What seemed to me at first as evidence of the code being available for them (alternate ROMs), was really just evidence of the devices not being locked down. However, it turns out that for some (most?), the source is not actually available. It is a strange situation, the manufacturers seem to still be releasing new ROMs with bugfixes, but they are not releasing the code. What a shame, I cannot see what they gain from this. Many on these forums would enhance the code and make the devices more valuable if they did.
25 years of making people who agree with you cringe Posted Oct 21, 2010 2:54 UTC (Thu) by vapier (subscriber, #15768) [Link]
i started off the article with that feeling "oh the FSF, what level of crazy have they gotten to next". then i hit the badge requirements and i thought it couldn't get better. then i hit the terminology section and realized i lack any sort of imagination.
Jon Stewart put it pretty nicely:
25 years of making people who agree with you cringe Posted Oct 21, 2010 6:09 UTC (Thu) by madhatter (subscriber, #4665) [Link] But if the application installer lists a popular proprietary Flash plugin or network telephony application, it may be deemed to be "steering users" toward non-free code.I found it slightly amusing that in criticising this as "what level of crazy", you point to a reference that I can only access with Adobe flash installed. For me, that makes the FSF's point. All those end-users who "just want things to work", and click through unacceptable end-user licences they don't even read in order to make them work, are causing those of us who want to be free significant problems. Most of the pressure on producers to do things properly goes away, as only the two or three weirdoes at the back (which includes me) are left objecting. That's my problem, for wanting to be free, I guess. But while I don't expect Adobe to fight my corner, I do expect the FSF to fight it. I'm glad they continue to do that, whether or not it makes the "marque" less useful to all those other users who are happy to install not-really-free software just to make things work.
Well, it's only natural... Posted Oct 21, 2010 7:39 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I found it slightly amusing that in criticising this as "what level of crazy", you point to a reference that I can only access with Adobe flash installed. Why it's amusing? It's sad - but it shows the point beautifully. People want to see Flash-sites. That's just fact of life. Small percent of them (odd million or so) want to have free hardware too (I do). Yes, there are few guys who refuse to use Flash and want only free hardware (like RMS and you, I guess) - but there are too few of them to actually sway the manufacturers in any direction. If the choice is to attach "Supports Adobe Flash" label xor "Respects Your Freedom" label the first one will win nine times out of ten and perhaps even ten times out of ten. All those end-users who "just want things to work", and click through unacceptable end-user licences they don't even read in order to make them work, are causing those of us who want to be free significant problems. Yes, but don't forget that they pay for the development of all these gadgets too. Most of the pressure on producers to do things properly goes away, as only the two or three weirdoes at the back (which includes me) are left objecting. Sure, but the way to change the situation is not to blindly press ahead. If you want to be heard you need a coalition with some of your opponents who support at least part of your agenda - otherwise manufacturers will just ignore you and your campaign... and will be right. The goal of manufacturers is to produce profit and "three weirdoes at the back" are not big enough market to think about it.
Well, it's only natural... Posted Oct 21, 2010 8:24 UTC (Thu) by madhatter (subscriber, #4665) [Link]
>> All those end-users who "just want things to work", and click through
>> unacceptable end-user licences they don't even read in order to make >> them work, are causing those of us who want to be free significant >> problems. > > Yes, but don't forget that they pay for the development of all these > gadgets too.
And what use is that to me, if I want to be free rather than cool? I'm not saying the gadgets aren't nice, nor that they don't do useful things for those happy to use them; but since I won't use them, their existence is unlikely to persuade me that something useful is coming out of that community and their purchasing habits.
> If you want to be heard you need a coalition with some of your opponent
I don't want this to become political, but - if you know anything about UK politics - consider the coalition government we currently have here. The Liberal Democrats did exactly what you suggest - joined a coalition with a larger opponent in order to be heard on their common ground - and many commentators[1] are now suggesting that they'll take a lot of damage at the next general election for it. If this happens, I'd argue that it's because the price they paid to join the coalition involved the sacrifice of some fundamental principles, which their supporters will not quickly forgive. You're right about fringe minorities being difficult to hear, but if they get in bed with larger groups who are antithetical to some of their core values just to share the platform, it can go badly wrong for the smaller partner.
[1] eg http://chinamieville.net/post/1361955242/letter-to-a-prog..., but there are many other examples.
Well, it's only natural... Posted Oct 21, 2010 11:35 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] And what use is that to me, if I want to be free rather than cool? You'll get your free gadget eventually. These things usually work by evolution. Remember the web video scene a few years ago? Different sites used RealMedia, Quicktime, Windows Media -- each of which had its own plugin, none of which worked on linux. Now they all use flash, which works on linux, and a lot of them even work with free implementations like gnash. It is definitely progress. Further progress will come through HTML5, and again that is already available on many sites. The problem is patent-encumbered codecs. We are far from being completely free but we are closer than we would have been if we had simply dug in our heels and said "we're not watching any content that requires a non-free player." The idea of open standards has taken root and hardware devices are already much "freer" than they were just a few years ago. USB devices (storage, cameras, video, and much else) that conform to standards can just be plugged into a linux computer and work. It's getting better, and it's not thanks to the FSF: it's thanks to the fact that there is now a significant number of OS's out there (several versions of Windows and Mac, non-negligible numbers of Linux) and manufacturers have realised the value of not having to bundle drivers separately for all these systems. We gain by popularising free systems and we don't popularise them by insisting on an "all-or-nothing" approach to ideological purity.
Well, it's only natural... Posted Oct 22, 2010 8:29 UTC (Fri) by pauly (subscriber, #8132) [Link]
> It's getting better, and it's not thanks to the FSF:
Well, in part it is. Not particularly to the FSF, but rather thanks to GPL. The ultimate non-free device for me is now the iPhone: A beautiful device on top of any usability score list, with a powerful unix-like OS at its heart. But the BSD licence allows Apple to get every profit from the (originally open) code, at the same time putting users into a (albeit golden) cage. The fact that the GPL is very clear about derived work has hugely helped to push evolution into the right direction. My impression is: Most manufacturers simply don't care mouch about openness or closedness, as long as they can use code to speed up development significantly. If they have to release source code then -- what the heck. This part of how the Linux explosion has worked.
GPL is hack - that's why it works... Posted Oct 22, 2010 15:01 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Most manufacturers simply don't care mouch about openness or closedness, as long as they can use code to speed up development significantly. If they have to release source code then -- what the heck. This part of how the Linux explosion has worked. Yup. People are irrational. They behave like monkeys. When you present carrot (high-quality code, free advertisement, etc) first and then show the stick (demand payment in form of freedom) later - they will often accept the bargain because, let's be frank, most manufacturers are not evil and lock-down the devices to simplify their own life, not to rob user of the freedom. When you present stick first and then your demands look truly onerous (why do you want to decide if I will offer support for Windows or not?) then you'll need much bigger carrot to overcome the first impression. In a sense FSF campaigns are designed to fail because they assume that people are rational - and in the end most of them end up a failure. Some few of them succeed because someone else presents the same idea in a sane way - but is it really a good way forward? I think "The perfect is the enemy of the good" dogma applies to FSF 9 times out of 10 (if not 10 times out of 10). The infamous example of this problem is the Nopedia vs the Wikipedia. It took three years to create 24 high-quality articles using experts and thorough per-review process (and some 74 articles were in the works when Nupedia was closed down). Wikipedia got more articles in few days after launch! And in one year it had more very high-quality articles then Nupedia got in three years! Sure, most articles on Wikipedia were (and are) complete rubbish, but... the topics covered by other encyclopedias are great in Wikipedia - and "rubbish" topics cover things which will never be even mentioned in Britannica! Does it mean experts and per-review are irrelevant? Sure as hell no - but by themselves they are not numerous enough to move "free world encyclopedia" idea forward. And the same is true for the people who care enough about freedom to accept onerous FSF's requirements related to this mark...
Well, it's only natural... Posted Oct 21, 2010 19:20 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
the thing is that the hardware in question _is_ open, you can put whatever you want on it.
however, the FSF doesn't want to say that the hardware is open if the vendor offers closed software on it.
I would love it if all the hardware that has closed software pre-installed on it was also open and I could put my software on it instead.
saying that hardware isn't open enough if it is offered with the option of closed software means that you drive manufacturers into an either-or situation. they can either support the closed software that most of their customers want, or they can have 'open hardware' (even though the hardware doesn't change). there is no company out there that will willingly eliminate all sales for people who want to use closed software to support the people who want nothing but free software.
Well, it's only natural... Posted Oct 21, 2010 9:02 UTC (Thu) by lbt (subscriber, #29672) [Link]
> People want to see Flash-sites. That's just fact of life.
No, they really don't.
What they really, really want is to see the cute kittens and puppies ^H^H^H^H^^H content on the flash sites.
Flash [being closed] simply makes/made it an order of magnitude harder for free solutions to be built up to allow ordinary users to create (and see) that content.
Imagine how the explosion of geocites or any of the simple "html page" sites would have fared if HTML _needed_ an $x00 package from Adobe to create them?
OTOH the FSF have again lead the way... now we just need a less extreme organisation (like the LF?) to introduce a similar but realistic and viable mark - because whilst the FSF may be leading the way they are failing woefully at delivering.
Well, it's only natural... Posted Oct 21, 2010 21:28 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
One of the rules of leading is to look back once in a while to make sure you still have followers. The few who follow this eye-rolling exercise will not be enough to induce ANY manufacturers to also follow.
25 years of making people who agree with you cringe Posted Oct 21, 2010 18:43 UTC (Thu) by Fats (subscriber, #14882) [Link] All those end-users who "just want things to work", and click through unacceptable end-user licences they don't even read in order to make them work, are causing those of us who want to be free significant problems.I'm happily running Flash, I've no problem with the EULA. I feel myself more free than you. You seem to have some conviction that forbids you to use some things which are provided to you for free.
greets,
25 years of making people who agree with you cringe Posted Oct 21, 2010 21:09 UTC (Thu) by madhatter (subscriber, #4665) [Link] > I've no problem with the EULA.2.4 Backup Copy. You may make one backup copy of the Software, provided your backup copy is not installed or used. You may not transfer the rights to a backup copy unless you transfer all rights in the Software as provided under Section 4. You ever make backups of your system, including the directory where flash is installed? I hope you don't ever keep more than one backup. That would be wrong. 3.1 Adobe Runtime Restrictions. You will not use any Adobe Runtime on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. For the avoidance of doubt, and by example only, you may not use an Adobe Runtime on any [...] tablet and Tablet PC (other than with Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and its successors) You weren't planning on running flash on Linux on a tablet, were you? That would be wrong. You agree that the Software will not be shipped, transferred or exported into any country or used in any manner prohibited by the United States Export Administration Act or any other export laws, restrictions or regulations (collectively the Export Laws).Planning on taking your netbook on holiday? That might be wrong, and it's your responsibility to check whether or not your holiday destination is permitted to you. 16.1.3 You are required to take all reasonable measures to avoid and reduce damages, in particular to make back-up copies of the Software and your computer data subject to the provisions of this agreement.I particularly enjoyed this one, inasmuch as it requires you to make backup copies of the software in accordance with the agreement, when the agreement earlier forbids you from making copies (a copy is OK; copies are not). That might be wrong; it's definitely impossible. There are other fairly objectionable terms in there, too. I can understand that people don't read it - it's 210 pages long, and in a whole selection of languages - but I'm vaguely surprised that people rush to defend it.
25 years of making people who agree with you cringe Posted Oct 21, 2010 21:35 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
Silly rules are there for ego stroking.
I have rented apartments with illegal clauses in the rental agreements. One silly landlord tried to enforce one (cleaning deposit in California), I took her to court, and won.
The point isn't that the clause was illegal so much as it was unenforceable, and the same applies to silly clauses in EULAs. The only real enforcement the manufacturer has is to not honor a warranty if they can find a reason to show you have abused their product. In practice, the clauses you cite are as unenforceable in every practical aspect as the truly illegal rental clause the landlord tried to enforce on me.
I don't like flash, but I use it without having read the EULA, and I don't care what nonsense they have put in there. There is nothing they can put in the EULA that has any affect on me.
25 years of making people who agree with you cringe Posted Oct 23, 2010 18:19 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Silly rules are there for ego stroking. I don't see how any ego gets stroked by Adobe including a silly rule in its EULA. But I can see how Adobe would include a restriction even knowing that it would be silly to enforce it 99.9% of the time, because in some scenario (which you haven't thought of, but lawyers are paid to imagine) it could mean a lot of money for Adobe. I have rented apartments with illegal clauses in the rental agreements. One silly landlord tried to enforce one (cleaning deposit in California), I took her to court, and won. (for those of you following along, felixfelix is talking about a "nonrefundable cleaning deposit," which is the oxymoronic term some rental agreements use to refer to money you put up in advance to pay for cleaning when you move out, whether the apartment is dirty or not. In California, a renter does not have the power to commit to that). But silly rules matter to some people on a moral basis, even if the law doesn't stand behind them. Some people believe it is wrong to renege on a deal, even when the government allows and encourages you to do it. If you gave your landlord money knowing that she expected to keep it and wouldn't give you the apartment without it, some would say you have a moral obligation to let her keep it. The law lets you renege on that deal as an efficient device to eliminate competition (with other renters who might pay that cleaning fee) and create a different distribution of wealth than the free market would. I know a case where a woman in New York City begged a landlord to rent her an apartment with broken plumbing, because she couldn't afford any normal apartment, lived there for 18 months, then took her entire rent for the whole time back. You can do that in New York, because it's the City's way of preventing apartments with broken plumbing from existing. But I can tell you lots of people would not have the chutzpah. I also know of several cases of people borrowing money and not paying it back, possibly intending that all along, and the law supported it because the parties agreed to interest higher than 10%. Some would call that theft, and I also know of cases where people repaid everything in spite of the legal privilege not to.
Adobe EULA stupidities Posted Oct 22, 2010 10:27 UTC (Fri) by james (subscriber, #1325) [Link]
It gets worse.
In order to use Adobe Reader, you have to click-through a box saying "I have read and agree to the EULA".
The EULA is provided as a PDF.
The only way out of that circular dependency is with another PDF reader.
25 years of making people who agree with you cringe Posted Oct 23, 2010 8:31 UTC (Sat) by Fats (subscriber, #14882) [Link]
I have to admit I sometimes don't follow laws and EULAs to the letter. I sometimes cross the street in a diagonal way. I sometimes use the bike lane on the wrong side of the road for short distances. I sometimes install software without reading the EULA.
Some people will call me a criminal for it.
I still don't have a problem with the EULA. I may be silly in certain places but it is just a showing of the mad world we live in. A world where people sue their microwave manufacturer because they fried their cat and it was not mentioned in the manual that you should not put a pet in the oven.
The EULA only applies to the software itself so if there would ever be a problem with it, like Adobe suing people for their use of the Flash plugin, I can just uninstall the software and be done with it.
That said, I don't defend Adobe's business practices. There is probably one thing worse then getting a bunch of IBM lawyers knocking on your door and that is having a bunch of Adobe lawyers knocking on your door ...
greets,
Oppressive Adobe Flash EULA Posted Oct 23, 2010 17:49 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] 16.1.3 You are required to take all reasonable measures to avoid and reduce damages, in particular to make back-up copies of the Software and your computer data subject to the provisions of this agreement.I particularly enjoyed this one, inasmuch as it requires you to make backup copies of the software in accordance with the agreement, when the agreement earlier forbids you from making copies (a copy is OK; copies are not). That might be wrong; it's definitely impossible. You just aren't parsing it correctly. A backup copy of the Software and a backup copy of your Windows registry constitute two backup copies, i.e. copies of the Software and your computer data. And incidentally, there is a rule of contract construction that says if a clause can be interpreted two ways and one of them is impossible, the other one is the one that applies.
Oppressive Adobe Flash EULA Posted Oct 23, 2010 21:27 UTC (Sat) by madhatter (subscriber, #4665) [Link]
I can't agree with your reading. One of each would be "you are required to make a back-up copy of the software and your computer data"; the singular has no other use. "Back-up copies of both" implies multiple copies of each.
Your point about contract construction seems much more convincing to me, and very sensible to boot - but it will doubtless vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. An EULA which requires me to do the impossible seems unwise to me, even though local contract law might save me from its insanities.
Oppressive Adobe Flash EULA Posted Oct 24, 2010 0:51 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] If I were writing that contract, with the meaning that we both know Adobe intended, I would write "copies," because "you are required to make a back-up copy of the software and your computer data" means you're required to make a single combined copy of the two, which is not normally how people back those things up. It's "you must send bills to all your customers," not "you must send a bill to all your customers." But I know people often say the latter. Also, the plural includes the singular in the same way the masculine includes the feminine in formal English. For example, "you must send bills to your customers" validly covers a merchant with one customer, if the text doesn't otherwise assert there is only one. I could add a bunch of words to prevent any interpretation like you're proposing, but it wouldn't be worth complicating the the text since I know no judge will choose an interpretation that makes it impossible to perform. Contract law varies very little throughout the US and even the whole English common-law world. Local variations are in specific subject matter areas; it's hard to find variation in basic things like construction (what did the parties mean when they said X?). You don't find law school contract textbooks specific to a state, for example.
Oppressive Adobe Flash EULA Posted Oct 25, 2010 9:48 UTC (Mon) by madhatter (subscriber, #4665) [Link]
You may well be right. I suppose I'm, oddly, minded to prefer software with a license that I don't have to examine with Strunk and White, and the 2010 White Book, to hand, in order to decipher my obligations. I'll stick with the GPL, and other free licences, and enjoy their protection, thanks.
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 3:54 UTC (Thu) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] An opportunity to recognize and promote freedom-supporting hardware has been lost, and that is a sad thing.I wonder if it even worse than that: If not FSF, what other organization might credibly create a certification mark like this, but without the unacceptable bits? The Linux Foundation? Too much a vendor organization, so their definition of open hardware would probably not be strict enought (eg allow closed drivers), and besides they are tied to Linux. SPI (Software in the Public Interest)? Maybe this would be up their alley, but they are not so well known, and do they have resources? Who else?
Linux Foundation Posted Oct 21, 2010 8:46 UTC (Thu) by alex (subscriber, #1355) [Link]
I would like the LF to come up with a mark like:
Works with 2.6.32+
Which would mean all the hardware had mainline (not staging) support from that kernel onwards.
Linux Foundation Posted Oct 21, 2010 10:06 UTC (Thu) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]
That is a great idea and I'd love to see it implemented. However, care would need to be taken with hardware that depends on the presence of firmware that is bundled with the kernel, without a license to do so, and then stripped out by distributions such as Debian and Fedora.
The firmware problem... Posted Oct 21, 2010 11:33 UTC (Thu) by alex (subscriber, #1355) [Link]
Do the kernel people still accept firmware blobs into the tree?
The firmware problem... Posted Oct 21, 2010 13:30 UTC (Thu) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link]
Not outside of staging, no.
From that kernel onwards ? Posted Oct 21, 2010 10:18 UTC (Thu) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]
I think it improbable that a software development organisation would be able to guarantee that all future versions of a program would be able to work with a specific item of hardware indefinitely. Eventually you have to have the freedom to break backwards compatibility with outdated stuff.
For a trivial example, consider the case of a single chip computer including non expandable RAM. 2.6.X might work in this amount of RAM, 2.6.X+1 might not.
From that kernel onwards ? Posted Oct 21, 2010 11:38 UTC (Thu) by alex (subscriber, #1355) [Link]
I think the definition would have to be a little grown up in accepting realistic caveats.
Certainly for most hardware that is working from a given kernel version you can reasonably expect it to continue working until the hardware is becoming a museum piece. In the cases that don't you know it worked for at least one version of the kernel and if you care enough (or pay someone to care) you could get it working again. This is a mark about freedom of hardware not assurance of eternal support.
Maybe just drop the + from the mark?
It is a contest? Posted Oct 22, 2010 15:38 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] FSF's idea was already DOA, why do you want even crazier and more pointless one? At least with "Respects Your Freedom" mark you have a clear list of requirements. "Works with 2.6.32+" does not have such a list - because there are no clear-cut rules which can be followed to guarantee inclusion in linux kernel! This is idea will be workable if and when all devices will use standardized interfaces (a-la USB sticks), but
It is a contest? Posted Oct 22, 2010 17:14 UTC (Fri) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Doesn't it feel like this is happening more & more?
I admit I don't have hard figures, and I'm not sure how I'd get them, but my strong feeling is that things have been getting progressively better.
That is to say, more of the hardware the OS actually cares about is class compliant rather than requiring custom drivers.
There are big holdouts. Networking for example, Ethernet cards are hot on compliance with a well documented standard right up until you reach the controller chip, I guess all the standard-friendly people at network peripheral companies work over on the link-layer side of the operation.
But on the whole I can't think of any category where things are less class-based than they were in say 1995, and many where things are more so.
I thought we'd missed a trick twice with USB, firstly sound (but today everything is either USB Audio or HDA on PCI) and then webcams (but the USB video spec didn't die, it was just a long pregnancy and today you can walk into any store and buy webcams you've never heard of that work in Linux)
You are correct - that's how things are going... Posted Oct 24, 2010 20:06 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] That is to say, more of the hardware the OS actually cares about is class compliant rather than requiring custom drivers. Well, the situation is simple: most "hardware" devices nowadays include sizable software components (firmwares for things things like HDD today are bigger then whole Unix systems were 30 years back), so when it's known what the device should do and how it should work they eventually comply to the spec. But it does not make the suggested mark valuable! In first stage when new wave of the devices are introduced it's pointless because it's sheer insanity to tie release dates for the "hot new stuff" to release dates of kernel and later when majority of the devices are produced by the most famous brand ever called "Noname" there are noone who will care enough to bother to test compliance - but it does not really matter because stuff works out of the box! But on the whole I can't think of any category where things are less class-based than they were in say 1995, and many where things are more so. Any category which existed back then is "old news" today - so of course the majority of the devices reached "driver for class" stage. But new categories and subcategories are different. Compare situation with mices (some still require drivers to enable full functionality, but for majority there are not need for driver at all) and multitouch-enabled touchpads.
Open Source Hardware, anyone? Posted Oct 22, 2010 18:02 UTC (Fri) by zack (subscriber, #7062) [Link]
>I wonder if it even worse than that: If not FSF, what other organization might credibly create a certification mark like this, but without the unacceptable bits?
If they really are becoming active again, and if they're smart enough to see the chance, I'd bet a few bucks on OSI (as in Open Source Initiative). If OSI would do that, and actually succeed in becoming fairly popular, that would be very much ironical: "open source" will become a common term for hardware pretty much as (unfortunately) it has become for software.
No matter how much I respect FSF and no matter how much I'm on the "Free Software" side of the free-software-vs-open-source religious war, in this case the irony will be well deserved.
Open Source Hardware definition Posted Oct 21, 2010 4:02 UTC (Thu) by finsprings (guest, #58789) [Link]
Seems worth mentioning that The Open Source Hardware draft definition is at:
http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW
Draft Spec For an Open Device Initiative Posted Oct 21, 2010 14:59 UTC (Thu) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] The Open Source Hardware initiative is a very different idea than what both the author was talking about and what the FSF is proposing to endorse. I suspect that it is also well beyond what most people care about. It would be nice to have a spec that addresses what the author is suggesting, and it would be great if there were a trademark and fancy logo associated with it. Here is my first draft suggestion for the spec:
Note: the likely currently precludes any cell phones from being level 1 open devices since there are no complete free/libre software stacks for cell networks (yet). Please, tear it apart... Anyone want to propose a logo? :)
Draft Spec For an Open Device Initiative Posted Oct 21, 2010 15:41 UTC (Thu) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463) [Link]
You are absolutely going in the right direction.
This is where the debate should be going.
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 4:25 UTC (Thu) by jebba (✭ supporter ✭, #4439) [Link]
A FLOSS BIOS, no blobs, Yeeloong (MIPS) procesor, this netbook would appear to qualify:
http://freedomincluded.com/
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 4:58 UTC (Thu) by jtc (subscriber, #6246) [Link]
"Let it be said: your editor does not believe that "respect your freedoms" includes hiding information about available options. Free software should be able to win on its own merits; it doesn't require attempts to create ignorance about proprietary alternatives. Viewing users as needing to be "steered" in the right direction does not seem respectful."
Interesting - the implication here (as far as I can tell) is that, in the author's opinion, the FSF's criteria actually make the device less free. Ironic - i.e., in the opinion of some FOSS advocates', FSF's criteria for open hardware results in hardware that is not truly open.
I agree with the main points of the article (essentially that the FSF is going too far in their requirements), but I'd need to think on the above (that the criteria makes the hardware less open) for at least a day - IMO, it's a rather shocking idea.
[Headline: "FSF pushes policies that promote non-free hardware" :-)]
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 5:49 UTC (Thu) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] ...the implication here (as far as I can tell) is that, in the author's opinion, the FSF's criteria actually make the device less free. Ironic - i.e., in the opinion of some FOSS advocates', FSF's criteria for open hardware results in hardware that is not truly open.But surely this is not such a surprise. The FSF's criteria for "free" has always included a very strong dose of "free means that you can do with it what we (the FSF) want, not necessarily what you want". To take the usual example, the GPL attaches more restrictions to what you can do with software than, say, BSD licensing; the GPLv3 even more so than the GPL2. So unless one is in lock-step agreement with the FSF that their definition of "free" trumps all others, then I think it is also possible to make the parallel statement that the FSF's criteria for open software results in software that is not truly open. And then there's the GNU documentation license...
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 7:04 UTC (Thu) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link]
I don't think that side thread is something new or fancy to talk about. It's the eternal question of if it's freedom to ban slavery or not. But for the free software users both BSD and GPL are quite equal, it's only in the territory of creating non-free software linking to free software that the difference matters.
GFDL is another matter and has more problems, but even that's not a good comparison to these "negative campaign" kind of things, it's just not very well crafted license regarding the uses that it ended up used at.
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 17:16 UTC (Thu) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link]
The tragic part about this is that in their fervor to label only products which comply strictly with all non-technical requirements, such as packaging and marketing, they set such a high barrier to marking that few manufacturers will bother, which leaves relatively average Free Software supporters unable to distinguish completely closed hardware from the hardware that actually supports the technical things that the FSF is trying to require.
The result is that I'll be buying more closed hardware than if they had a less hard-lined stance, or permitted different levels of compliance (with different labels).
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 22, 2010 20:41 UTC (Fri) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
> [Headline: "FSF pushes policies that promote non-free hardware" :-)]
Wouldn't be much of a surprise, considering that they've promoted non-free documentation for a long time.
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 6:10 UTC (Thu) by grahame (subscriber, #5823) [Link]
I saw RMS speak in Perth (Australia) on Tuesday night. Fully half the talk was listing his litany of complaints; about half that time was devoted the Linux vs. GNU/Linux argument.
Much of the audience were corporate types, who didn't know that much about free software, and were definitely not seeming inspired by what I can only characterise as whining about what to anybody sensible is a fairly minor one. Certainly something that matters to RMS and the FSF, but it shouldn't have been in that speech.
Stallman was pretty amazingly rude to people asking questions, and I know a couple of people who wanted to ask questions but were put off by his rude and aggressive responses to other questioners.
I don't think RMS is a good head for the community. Someone also needs to tell the FSF that 'iBad' and so on are lame puns that aren't going convince anyone that's not already convinced!
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 6:48 UTC (Thu) by elanthis (guest, #6227) [Link]
The problem is worse than that, in ways I don't have the time to explain fully right now. The gist of it is that "Linux" is an incredibly marketable, catchy, easy-to-remember name, and "GNU/Linux" when spoken out loud feels like something you have to hack out of the back of your throat. People say "XP" and not "Microsoft Windows XP" for exactly the same reason that people say "Linux" and not "GNU/MIT/KDE/Linux/etc."
A short, sweet, catchy name is going to be more popular than a longer, uglier name, whether or not it is more correct. Period. If RMS actually cared about his beliefs and his goals more than his ego, he not only would drop the "GNU/Linux" requirements, he'd also rename both the FSF and GNU to be more palatable by regular folks.
"Free Software" is an even bigger mistake, on the account that it really is just confusing to people who don't know what the term means. If I use the term "Open Source" around someone who knows jack and shit about software licensing, then the best case scenario is that they'll figure out what it means on their own and the worst case scenario is that they have to ask me what I meant. If I use the term "Free Software" around the same person, the best case scenario is that they assume I mean "software you can get freely" and worst case scenario they assume it is equivalent to "freeware." Open Source isn't confusing, and it even clearly states in relatively unambiguous terms what it means. Free Software is extremely confusing and super ambiguous. The simple fact that there are a metric shitload of proprietary apps that call themselves "free software" (because that is a perfectly valid English label for the software) is proof enough. Nobody is going to go around calling Internet Explorer 9 an Open Source project, but it's already called free software by people who (gasp) downloaded the beta for free. If I have to attach a paragraph of explanation to a term every time I use it -- not just to explain nuances of the vernacular but to make sure it isn't wildly misinterpreted as something totally different -- then the term is disastrously poorly chosen.
This is why I always use the term Open Source, why I always use the word Linux to refer to an entire class of OSes, and why I pronounce GNOME as "gnome" and not "guh-nome" (because the latter just makes you look retarded as that combination of letters already has an established pronunciation).
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 11:07 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Aside, but "guh-nome" (with a short, soft, not too obvious 'guh') surely is an established, popular pronunciation? It certainly is in en_{GB,IE} and probably other !en_US locales..
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 14:18 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
Don't know about en_IE, but in en_GB it's not pronounced that way - unless perhaps in some regional dialogue I've never heard. I had no idea the desktop environment was supposed to be pronounced like that - I'd be surprised if anyone ever did.
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 14:39 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
s/dialogue/dialect/, obviously.
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 21:46 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Flanders would probably have pronounced it that way. ("I'm a g-nu.")
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 15:46 UTC (Thu) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] Established but hardly popular; as far as I know, en_GB speakers who reverse the silencing of k/g before n do so either consciously due to wilful eccentricity or unconsciously due to immersion in a wilfully eccentric subculture.
OT: gnome pronunciation Posted Oct 24, 2010 20:49 UTC (Sun) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Seems you're right, my pronunciation norms are biased by subculture membership. ;) Straw poll elsewhere is overwhelmingly "nome".
Free source software Posted Oct 21, 2010 21:41 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
I have always pissed on both camps by making up my own moniker, "Free Source Software". It's very easy to say and unmistakeable in meaning.
Free source software Posted Oct 24, 2010 8:32 UTC (Sun) by mfedyk (guest, #55303) [Link]
I like this. I'll be saying free source software from now on.
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 6:34 UTC (Thu) by arctanx (subscriber, #59239) [Link]
It's so sad to see how caught up they are in the details. I'm following development of the Sharism NanoNote and the project leaders there have such a different view: we're just building stuff and sharing as much as possible because we think that's good. They're not worried about being "taken advantage of" or what license should be used for this or that and are focused entirely on building a sustainable practising community of open hardware developers where stuff is actually being made. It's refreshing and productive.
The FSF's guidelines feel so much like they were thought up in a vacuum. Does anyone know if they tried to discuss them with any of the existing open hardware projects before publishing them? I'd be interested to know if they just did it without consulting anybody or if it turns out that the existing open hardware projects just aren't open enough.
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 8:18 UTC (Thu) by dunlapg (subscriber, #57764) [Link]
One is tempted to wonder if the FSF has been infiltrated by Microsoft double-agents, who push the organization to be more extreme than it would otherwise be, and thus undermine its effectiveness.
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 12:11 UTC (Thu) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]
It appears that the criteria are aimed more at traditional manufacturers rather than the open hardware movement. There is an unfortunate disconnect between the FSF and that movement :(
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 7:51 UTC (Thu) by aggelos (subscriber, #41752) [Link]
"This applies to all software that the seller includes in the product, or provides with the product, or recommends for use in conjunction with the product, or steers users towards installation in the product... By way of explanation, a general-purpose facility for installing other programs, with which the choice of programs to install comes directly from the user, is not considered to steer users toward anything in particular. However, if the facility typically suggests installation particular programs, then it steers users towards those programs."
" The FSF has never been content to work toward the creation of free software and advocacy for its use; it has also made an overt effort to ensure that, like an Orwellian "unperson," proprietary software is never even mentioned. So a mobile device running a system like MeeGo might qualify for the FSF's endorsement, assuming it's open, lacking binary drivers, etc. But if the application installer lists a popular proprietary Flash plugin or network telephony application, it may be deemed to be "steering users" toward non-free code."
I honestly don't see how you can read the text that way. AFAICT it explicitly says that /listing/ a proprietary application would be OK. It seems to me that, in this case, your preconception of the FSF affects your reading of the text.
Also, this particular requirement appears to be reasonable. Technology, or UIs for that matter, are not politics-free and *suggesting* installation of proprietary software is indeed promoting that software. I can understand why you would not want such a requirement to be part of an "Open/Hackable Hardware" specification, but this very much belongs in the requirements for an FSF-endorsement badge. Which does not mean that an "Open Hardware" badge is not needed or wanted.
Needless to say, I find the use of "Orwellian" here just plain wrong. The same goes for "newspeak". Language is not politically neutral either and choosing to use language that brushes aside issues having to do with software freedom, is, in effect, conceding that this freedom is not that important to you. You or I can afford to only speak about software freedom in a friendly court, but, by definition, ANY honest Free Software Foundation can't do that.
That is not to say that some of your other points (especially the one about proprietary-software-X-compatible badges) are not valid :)
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 13:01 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Where does it say that listing a proprietary application is OK? When they say that the choice "comes directly from the user" they mean exactly that. Look at the history of the ghostscript license to see how they feel about mentioning proprietary software.
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 14:08 UTC (Thu) by aggelos (subscriber, #41752) [Link]
Oh, I think I get how you're reading the text now. You're taking "a general-purpose facility for installing other programs" to be something like dpkg instead of something like apt. That is plausible, even though if they wanted to do that I'd expect they'd phrase it in no unambiguous terms. It would be interesting to get a clarification from them. Hint, hint :)
My other points still stand of course.
"Hint, hint" Posted Oct 21, 2010 14:29 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Yes, it might be nice to get clarification from the FSF.But: the FSF refuses to talk to anybody who will not promise to use their "approved terminology." I am unwilling to make such promises. So I'll not be contacting them for clarification.
"Hint, hint" Posted Oct 21, 2010 16:16 UTC (Thu) by jeremiah (subscriber, #1221) [Link]
I take it that means you're not going to change the name of the site to "GNU/Linux Weekly News." ;) Something about the tone of your comment suggests that someone has tried before, and that it didn't go well.
</humor>
"Hint, hint" Posted Oct 21, 2010 22:10 UTC (Thu) by aggelos (subscriber, #41752) [Link]
Well, I mailed Brett Smith about it and just got his reply:
------------------
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 20:52 +0200, Aggelos Economopoulos wrote:
If the list of packages that is used on the device as shipped includes
------------------
So it seems that your reading is correct after all. I'll ask them to make the wording clearer if possible.
Mission creep Posted Oct 21, 2010 8:47 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
This reminds me of the behaviour of some spam-blackhosting services: rather than being content to list only addresses known to produce spam, they will also block mail from sites for other behaviour they consider undesirable such as 'promoting spam' by hosting websites. It is vital to stick to the central, well-defined (and politically neutral) criterion, and not throw in other requirements about how you'd like the world to work, however well-intentioned.
Mission creep - bad example Posted Oct 21, 2010 10:55 UTC (Thu) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]
I disagree with your spam analogy because sometimes you won't control something like this effectively by pruning the visible growth. You have to poison the less visible roots. Bindweed is a similar example.
You seem to perceive spam control very differently from how I do. The blacklisting services will generally put their blacklists into different domains based upon different selection criteria, or will provide different return codes to enquiries for different blacklisting reasons. In either case by giving the user of the blacklist information about how the blacklist is composed, it then is the choice of the user to decide which blacklists to subscribe to and how to use these.
In particular the responsibility for blocking spam isn't that of the blacklist provider. All the latter do is to publish information about their opinions as to the reputations of different email origins. Are you objecting to the right of blacklist providers to publish their opinions ?
Mission creep - bad example Posted Oct 21, 2010 12:21 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] My point was not that spam blacklists are inherently evil or blocking innocent people's mail or anything like that. Rather, if the list of known-spammer hosts is bulked up with the addition of other sites which are not sending spam (but have perhaps offended the list operators in other ways) then it becomes less useful for its original stated purpose, that of filtering inbound mail to discard definite junk, and fewer people choose to use it.The blacklisting services will generally put their blacklists into different domains based upon different selection criteria, or will provide different return codes to enquiries for different blacklisting reasons.In that case, of course, the user of the service can decide which of the blacklist categories to pay attention to. They could decide to only block mail from the 'yes, this site is definitely sending bulk mail' list and ignore the 'these people are Spam Supporters because of reason XYZ' list. So perhaps my complaint is out of date; I was still thinking of a single list. Back to the original topic, it would be great if there were one basic 'this hardware uses with free software' mark and a separate one for '100% compliant with FSF dogma'. But that's not going to happen, at least not from the FSF.
why the surprise? Posted Oct 21, 2010 9:16 UTC (Thu) by wingo (subscriber, #26929) [Link] I dunno, Jon. You seem to be focused on "free hardware" to the exclusion of the more broad theme of "user freedom" -- that the FSF is simply expanding their sphere of interest from software to hardware. Note, such an expansion must necessarily bring software freedom along for the ride! And given that it's the FSF, is it surprising that it's the FSF's definition of software freedom? Did you expect the FSF to give the OSI's definition of "open source"? An opportunity to recognize and promote freedom-supporting hardware has been lost, and that is a sad thing. Does it logically follow that the FSF's efforts to support freedom-supporting software is also an opportunity lost? If you want pragmatic, you are looking to the wrong place if you look on fsf.org -- rightfully so, IMO, but I thought this would be obvious.
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 10:15 UTC (Thu) by njd27 (subscriber, #5770) [Link]
A better way to solve the problem of "is it hackable" when shopping for hardware is probably a database and an Android app which can scan bar codes.
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 22, 2010 22:39 UTC (Fri) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
Except that most people shopping for devices are shopping online. No barcodes likely available there. :(
DRM vs. Free Software. Posted Oct 21, 2010 11:13 UTC (Thu) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063) [Link] "Interestingly, the device is allowed to implement DRM mechanisms - but only in free software, so the DRM can be removed by a suitably skilled and motivated user."I don't like the way that's stated and I like the version from the FSF even less: " The device may support formats that are hampered by Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), but it can only use free software to do so. This means that users will be able to change that software and thus eliminate the restrictions.". We should not be reinforcing the idea that the use of Free Software enables DRM (and regulatory requirements, qv.) to be bypassed. Enough people have that idea already, and it's wrong. It isn't actually that hard to reverse-engineer closed source software and remove restrictions and this is actually how it's been done in the majority of cases. Most DRM schemes are cracked because someone has worked it out from a closed software implementation. DRM is fundamentally impossible to implement in software. You have to give the decoder to every bored teenager and criminal and interested technical genius who wants to make fair use of whatever they've bought. And one of them is going to work out how it works. Every time. So we shouldn't be saying that people should be doing their DRM in open source "even though doing so will allow the DRM to be bypassed". We should be saying that people should be doing their DRM in open source because it makes no difference; it'll get bypassed anyway.
DRM vs. Free Software. Posted Oct 21, 2010 15:59 UTC (Thu) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463) [Link]
I don't see any point of mentioning DRM at all. Either I can take full control of the device and run whatever code I want, in which case its "Open Hardware", or I can't. In which case it's short of a fucking brick.
Of course, DRM-schemes do hamper adoption of free software, but only in respect of people not being able to play/process the content they want, because said schemes are probably not implemented in free software (out of fear the scheme might be defeated -- which of course is stupid in the first place; a working DRM is a mathematical impossibility). But DRM belongs to the "Open Content" and "Open File Formats" debate, and has nothing whatsoever to do with hardware in the first place.
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 11:37 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
The FSF's definition of 'misleading' seems very strange. In what universe is 'a system with the Linux kernel' a misleading way to describe, e.g., Debian? It *is* a system with the Linux kernel! Just because it happens not to mention GNU doesn't make it misleading. It's just more inclusive than the FSF would like.
This endorsement program is definitely showing the FSF's least attractive side. If even one manufacturer signs up to it, I will be surprised: if that manufacturer isn't bankrupt by the end of the year, I will be amazed.
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 21, 2010 14:41 UTC (Thu) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link]
You picked a less than ideal example there, because Debian has BSD-kerneled variants too: http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/ (which I believe is due to be a fully-supported port in the upcoming Squeeze release). So substitue almost any other Linux distro to make the point whilst avoiding quibblers.
But I take your point, and agree with you that it seems to make little sense.
How not to recognize free hardware Posted Oct 22, 2010 12:53 UTC (Fri) by gerv (subscriber, #3376) [Link]
I agree with most of this; but the guidelines are open for discussion:
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Talk:Hardware/Endorsement_cri...
Last week, I made several of the points the editor has now made. Why not jump in and support me?
Gerv
|
|||||||||||||