How not to recognize free hardware [LWN.net]

How not to recognize free hardware

Posted Oct 21, 2010 7:51 UTC (Thu) by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)
Parent article: How not to recognize free hardware

"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 :)

(Log in to post comments)

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:
> > It is not clear if "a general-purpose facility for installing other
> > programs" includes a facility like APT (where you typically download a
> > default list of packages that are available for installation from a
> > remote site). Would such a facility that, among hundreads of packages,
> > included packages of non-free software meet your criteria if it didn't
> > go out of its way to promote the non-free packages?

If the list of packages that is used on the device as shipped includes
nonfree software, then such a facility would not pass muster under the
criteria, no. We definitely had apt and its package repositories in
mind as one common facility when we wrote that section. If the default
repositories include nonfree software, that's "steer[ing] users towards
installation" of the software."

------------------

So it seems that your reading is correct after all. I'll ask them to make the wording clearer if possible.