FSF Announces Hardware Endorsement Criteria 273
sveinungkv writes "The Free Software Foundation has announced criteria for the hardware endorsement program 'Respects Your Freedom.' From the announcement: 'The desire to own a computer or device and have full control over it, to know that you are not being spied on or tracked, to run any software you wish without asking permission, and to share with friends without worrying about Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) — these are the desires of millions of people who care about the future of technology and our society. (...) With our endorsement mark and the strong criteria that back it, we plan to bridge that gap and demonstrate to manufacturers that they stand to gain plenty by making hardware that respects people's freedom instead of curtailing it.' While it currently contains some requirements that many may find broader than what they personally need, the remaining criteria would make the FSF endorsement a useful tool when looking for devices that give the owner control over the device they have bought and paid for. The criteria are still open for feedback."
Disguised keyboard emulators (Score:3, Interesting)
Just saw a semi-related post in the firehose: Scary USB marketing device [slashdot.org].
So would a marketing gimmick/keyboard emulator which pretends to be a USB flash drive count as free hardware? :/
Re:Disguised keyboard emulators (Score:5, Insightful)
"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"
No big manufacturer is going to put up with that. This simply means the idea won't fly. Not that it had chance in the first place, but it was a good idea, with this - it goes into the ground. I don't like "Works for Windows" labels myself, but they are 1) required to inform the customer that the hardware will work with Windows 2) not going away. We could only hope that "Works with Free Software" is added to those.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be great, but it probably won't happen because while "Windows" and "Mac" refers to multiple versions of one OS (Windows now usually means XP/Vista/7 and Mac means whatever few latest MacOS versions there are), "Free software" refers to a lot of different operating systems.
Even "Linux" is not a single OS. The device might work with Ubuntu, but not with RedHat or Slackware or Mandriva and I don't think that the manufacturer will test all of the more popular distributions. Testing for multiple versi
Re:Disguised keyboard emulators (Score:5, Insightful)
But ultimately, there's the very real possibility of cost savings here, as if they're using freely available tools and using open standards, they don't have to worry about supporting a hundred different platforms, as the tools would be there to add the support.
I may have missed it, but I didn't see any requirements that a manufacturer support platform X, just that the tools and the other necessities be free software.
Underspecified device classes (Score:2)
his whole present bit is the direct result of manufacturers failing to implement things to the appropriate standard.
Provided that there exists such a standard. A lot of USB device classes [usb.org] aren't specified enough to allow for a generic class driver, such as bitmap printers (printer device class 1.1 doesn't define a baseline printer control protocol and page description language), flatbed scanners, storage devices that aren't the sort of block devices envisioned by the Mass Storage Class (such as EPROM programmers), and adapters to connect legacy devices (such as RS232 serial ports). And I don't see how a standard for low-
Re:Disguised keyboard emulators (Score:4, Funny)
Even "Linux" is not a single OS. The device might work with Ubuntu, but not with RedHat or Slackware or Mandriva and I don't think that the manufacturer will test all of the more popular distributions. Testing for multiple versions of multiple distributions would be too much, especially since only a few percent of end users use Linux.
Careful there sonny - by failing to refer to it as "GNU/Linux" you are no longer eligible for the endorsement.
Re: (Score:2)
Any device that works with one should work with all. Kernel drivers are all that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. If it "Works with Windows", is "Made for Macs", and is "FSF Compatible" no sane manufacturer is not going to want to mention all three. Even with its current, rather limited, desktop appeal I still see lots of peripherals marked with a "Linux Compatible" symbol joining the "WwW" and "MfM" ones on the back. If your hardware works with a given system why *wouldn't* you tell people. You obviously put at least some effort into the cross compatibility and it certainly can't hurt sales.
Disagree (Score:2)
If it "Works with Windows", is "Made for Macs", and is "FSF Compatible" no sane manufacturer is not going to want to mention all three.
Disagree. Device manufacturers look at the cost (time and money) of the process required to license the logo/badge and decide that way. If the FSF have a sensible cost and process, then a little more testing to attract a growing segment is worth it.
The FSF is 100% wrong if they attempt to exclude Microsoft and Apple compatibility logos. Hardware can be simultaneously GPL
You mean "GNU/Linux" compatible (Score:2, Insightful)
No really, that's one of the requirements: you have to refer to it as "GNU/Linux", not just Linux. You also have to emphasize "Free Software" over "Open Source". Go read the doc, it's really in there
The MacArthur Foundation ought to take back the Genius Grant they gave RMS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those endorsements / badges are typically by choice of the vendor, though.
I don't think this applies to a list of compatible systems on the back of a box (i.e. "Compatible with: Windows, Mac OS X and Ubuntu* (*For a complete list, visit www.vendor.com/support/"). These are just the little logos and stickers that you get to slap on the box/product -if- you meet certain requirements. For example: your installer must be Windows Installer based. If you use NSIS or InnoSetup: no sticker for you. But converse
Re: (Score:2)
Plus it says you must adopt FSF dogma, such as
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."
Too bad this endorsement mark is really about promoting FSF and settling old scores, rather than being about promoting users' freedom.
Re:Disguised keyboard emulators (Score:5, Informative)
No, they are quite clear its about freedom of the *users*, not everyone.
Re:Disguised keyboard emulators (Score:4, Insightful)
So they're all about the freedom of users, except when the user wants to run proprietary software?
How is my freedom restricted merely by buying a device that bears a "Works With Proprietary Software" sticker if the device can also run Free Software?
How is my freedom restricted if I choose to run proprietary software?
Re:Disguised keyboard emulators (Score:4, Insightful)
The specific example they give in the text is ""Works with Windows" sticker. I don't see how it is an endorsement so much so as a statement of compatibility. Rallying against such stickers is, essentially, running against interoperability with non-"Free" products.
Not that FSF doing that would surprise me in the slightest.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Repeating yourself and getting louder doesn't make you more right, it just makes you look ignorant and annoying, and is a sad reflection on the state of discussion in the world.
Either way, once again, it's not about freedom for everyone, its about freedom for the *users*. Arguing this point using restrictions on parties other than the *users* is a tangent at best, and deception at worst.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, it doesn't really help discussion if you only answer the points you want to, either.
So, because I'm interested: how does restricting the badging on hardware products help users to be more free? Surely it only helps them to be less informed?
Re: (Score:2)
Not trying to cherry pick at all.
What they want to avoid are product specific endorcements especially of the proprietary kind that lead you to believe the support is exclusive to that platform.
I expect they'd be fine with a compatibility table however.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What the FSF is saying here
Re:Disguised keyboard emulators (Score:5, Insightful)
The rule specifically states that you *cannot* also badge your product with a "competing" (ie, a similar endorsement scheme to the FSF's) scheme such as "Works with Vista/XP/7" or "Made for Mac", even if all other parts of their criteria are met (and in doing so, just so happens to also work just fine with Mac and Windows). That is shooting themselves in the foot, since 1) the Windows and Mac endorsements/compatibility testing is very widespread, effective and useful system, 2) this idea from the FSF is a good idea (more consumer product information is good) but is setting itself up to be incompatible.
So, they either convince manufacturers to drop the Mac and Windows compatibility badges in order to carry theirs (and thus, make it harder for consumers than it was before - not much harder, but adding a needless speedbump) or they convince manufacturers to run multiple packaging schemes for the FSF-badged line of otherwise identical product, which would add cost to the whole operation and create logistics complexity where it need not exist.
Neither of those options is a good starting point, so I don't see this getting off the ground, although it really should.
Do they really think so little of their target demographic that their excuse is "people might get confused and think it requires the proprietary compatibility badges" - if you are looking for hardware that has the blessing of the FSF, you really aren't going to make that mistake. I think the real reason is just sour grapes/cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait...so to have the FSF badge, which most people won't care about, you have to give up the "Made for Mac" / "Works with Windows" badges that people actually DO care about?
That doesn't seem like a smart business decision to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I am going to *facepalm* at them very very loudly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Total anarchy is not the only form or "true" freedom. I wouldn't even say that is much freedom in any sense.
How about the right to (Score:2, Insightful)
How about the right to make money off of something that millions find valuable that you labored to create, without fear that someone else will make a copy of it and start selling it themselves?
Re:How about the right to (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about the right to (Score:5, Insightful)
If those few bricks make the structure actually work, then yes, I will claim it as my own. What? I can't profit off of it? Oh well, I'll just keep my ideas to myself.
Please, do. With millions of people connected to the internet, we won't miss you. There will always be enterprising companies and individuals who will invent new useful things: enough incentive for that is provided by the first mover advantage, not to mention many people's natural desire to be recognized as experts in their field. Years will run by while competitors are struggling to reverse-engineer and understand original inventions, and during that time inventors will have a de facto monopoly, with none of the terrible economic consequences of copyright and patent laws.
Saying one is standing on the shoulders of others and therefore has no right to lay claim to their work is just an excuse to leach off of others hard work.
Stop using English, stop using Mathematics. As you say, you have no excuse. Get off your ass and come up with your own languages.
And seeing others get the recognition and rewards that come from claiming one's work is inspiring: whether it's seeing become a billionaire or going down in history as the person that made the breakthrough.
Of course, it is entirely possible to get recognition for and to monetize free software and free art, and we see it happening everywhere these days. This argument is completely misplaced.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That right doesn't conflict with the right of a consumer to their property.
That's where innovation and brand come in. Just because you release your specs doesn't let a competitor compete with you until they've had time to get those specs into production and build a distribution network. By then it's too late for them to compete for market share.
There are a zillion cheap iPod knockoffs and other devices which do basically the same thing. Apple made a fortune on digital music players before anyone else and
Re: (Score:2)
without fear that someone else will make a copy of it
This isn't a troll but a valid point about the 'and share with friends' bit. It's none of hardware's business to decide if one may or may not make a copy of a digital work but they don't need to call out copying to someone who didn't purchase or license it. That's a civil case between the user and the producer. Hardware needs to make no distinction on making copies - it's the user's decision whether the copies are to make spares for themselves
YOU HAVE NO "RIGHT" TO MAKE MONEY (Score:5, Interesting)
The "right to make money"/socialism for business is at the center of the corrupt economic regime that dominates Wall St. It is standard practice to commit fraud because being profitable trumps the rule of law. The latest "robosigning" scandal is a classic example of how things really work. If you signed a fraudulent affidavit as part of a real estate transaction then you would go to jail. When Bank of America does it to save money then it is a "paperwork error". There is one law for big corporate American and another law for individuals. That means there is in effect no rule of law at all. And it goes back to people like you who think that making profit is a right. You are pro-corruption. It is this attitude and it's real world effect that are destroying the US and world economy.
Good news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Are they waking up to it? Most vendors aren't blatantly obvious in doing these seeding things. It will take a real case for FSF or anybody to really be able to highlight the benefits of Free.
Additionally this is good news for smaller manufacturers who don't care or don't have the ability to add additional "services" to their products that shouldn't really be there to begin with. If this endorsement gains any momentum, that's yet another incentive to do business the simple, straightforward way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, many people see locked-down hardware, and software too, as an advantage
Give us examples. Give us an example of a platform where the very fact that the owner is locked out is beneficial to the owner. It is true that some proprietary software may be seen as better on technical grounds, or even be cheaper to maintain, but name one instance where opening up the code and the hardware specs would be detrimental to the device's owner.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall ever hearing an end user trumpet the fact that it is locked down as an advantage over Android. Most users, I suspect, wouldn't care if it was or was not open. That doesn't validate the lock down though.
You still didn't answer my question as to why you so vocally hate the FSF.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I don't recall ever hearing an end user trumpet the fact that it is locked down as an advantage over Android.
That's because they never use such loaded words to describe it, but it is essentially the lockdown that brings the benefits that the users like (vetted apps, platform consistency, etc).
You still didn't answer my question as to why you so vocally hate the FSF.
I don't hate the F$F. I just pity the followers of the cult.
Re: (Score:2)
Both of which have been show to be false, especially with the App Store.
But your responses come off as so very angry.
Re: (Score:2)
They have a perception of integration, not lock down.
No, but I suggest taking a chill pill.
Re: (Score:2)
Err...
It's tragic that your blind, irrational hatred for the FSF has led you to troll a topic that would do well with varied, reasonable discussion instead of one-sided pro-lockdown trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall ever hearing an end user trumpet the fact that it is locked down as an advantage over Android.
Huh, I hear it all the time.
Higher quality apps and reduced chance of malware are the most commonly touted advantages.
And before you start point out how Android has good quality apps, or Apple's vetting process doesn't prevent malware or something... fuck off, I don't care. You claimed people don't see an advantage in Apple's system. I'm only pointing out the common advantages people claim to see,
Re: (Score:2)
If you read my response to Desler, that's been shown to be false. What if the WiFi router app had instead been malware? And don't go telling me there are no crap applications on the App Store.
Don't own an Android device, so can't speak to it.
Obviously you do.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read my response to Desler, that's been shown to be false.
Wow, you completely ignored me and proceeded to argue this point, anyway. What the hell is wrong with you?
I spoke of "commonly touted advantages". I don't care if they're correct or not. People believe them, contrary to your claims.
Re: (Score:2)
Soooo, you're basically throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks? Oh and carefully ignoring counterpoints that have been shown to actually happen?
I get it. Is there a latin phrase for "arguing while ignoring valid counterpoints?"
There is no perception that lock down is good. There is a perception (valid, even) that Apple's experience is good. And it would be, even if you weren't forced through the iTunes Store. But go ahea
Re: (Score:2)
Soooo, you're basically throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks? Oh and carefully ignoring counterpoints that have been shown to actually happen?
Nooo... I'm arguing a point. You're ignoring that point because you're wrong, and attempting to change the subject. If it's not clear what that point is, allow me to reiterate, as you seem a little slow.
You said:
I said:
Re: (Score:2)
No you aren't. You're saying "lock down is good and users love it!" when I'm saying that "users aren't aware of what lock down is."
No, you're trying to push a baseless point and sticking your head in the sand when I point out the holes.
The problem is you're suggesting that lock down i
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying "lock down is good and users love it!"
I'm not. Learn to fucking read. No, really, go back and re-read my post. Where did *I* make that claim? Please, find the text and quote where *I personally made that claim*. Go ahead. Give it a shot.
Seriously, I'm done, here. I'm not sure if your reading comprehension is just weak, you're too stupid to comprehend what I've written, or you're too blinded by your ideology to see through the thick fog of your beliefs in order to understand what I'm say
So they don't know it's called lockdown (Score:2)
You're saying "lock down is good and users love it!" when I'm saying that "users aren't aware of what lock down is."
For the sake of civility, let me try to combine your arguments: Users are unaware that it's called lockdown, but they love the end results that are achieved with lockdown as one of the steps.
Re: (Score:2)
nor do I have any interest in discussing it.
Look around, you are posting in the discussion section.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They use different words. They don't say "It's great that my phone is locked down." They say "It's great that the app store protects me from viruses and stuff" (Whether it does or not is another matter, but it's definitely a popular perception), or "it's nice that everything I buy on the App store always works", or (on the developer side) "it's nice to only have to test on one platform". People feel protected by the locked down nature of the device, developers feel insulated from a lot of the complicatio
Re: (Score:2)
The iPhone is a perfect example of what he actually said because the locked-down platform is seen by many of the users as an advantage of something more open like Android.
Many iPhone users don't even know what "locked-down" means, so whatever advantage the masses see in iPhones, it's not the fact that they cannot control them or know what they do. This is not a strawman: you just have nothing else to say. "In fact, many people see locked-down hardware, and software too, as an advantage" Again, what is this advantage? Would it disappear if the platform was open?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that most people still won't care. In fact, many people see locked-down hardware, and software too, as an advantage
If that were true Android never would have taken off: "App developers more bullish on Android than iOS"
http://community.nasdaq.com/News/2010-09/app-developers-more-bullish-on-android-than-ios.aspx?storyid=37842 [nasdaq.com]
The users ultimately follow the apps. Just see how many exclusive titles Microsoft had to purchase in order to ensure XBOX's success. Only in this case the developers are driving the apps and they're choosing Android because its much more open.
Re: (Score:2)
If that were true Android never would have taken off:
Why? What he said isn't mutually exclusive to that. Notice how he didn't say "all people".
"App developers more bullish on Android than iOS"
Because App developers are representative of an average phone user?
Just see how many exclusive titles Microsoft had to purchase in order to ensure XBOX's success.
As opposed to how many titles Sony purchased to be exclusive to their console?
AT&T&T&T (Score:2)
Android phones are, by and large, exactly as locked-down as iOS devices.
Google doesn't charge you $599 for a special computer plus $99 per year for a developer agreement to use "Unknown sources" on most Android phones.
I had to jailbreak (or whatever the term is) my HTC Aria before I could remove ATT's built-in apps, for example.
That's the fault of AT&T, not the fault of Google. AT&T, unlike the other three major United States mobile phone carriers, removes the "Unknown sources" option from its subsidized handsets.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't charge you $599 for a "special computer" to run Xcode - you are not mandated to buy a new one. Any Mac with an Intel processor will do it, and there are many for sale cheaply.
You can also just create a Hackintosh if you really want (licence nonwithstanding).
You do actually need *some* form of computer hardware to develop on though, that is unavoidable. It's not mandatory to get that hardware brand new from the Apple store though, as you seem to be suggesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Any Mac with an Intel processor will do it, and there are many for sale cheaply.
The cheapest Mac that I could find on Apple.com was a $599 Mac mini. Even refurbished Macs aren't that much cheaper; the cheapest Mac mini with an Intel CPU on usedmac.com goes for $465 plus shipping.
You do actually need *some* form of computer hardware to develop on though, that is unavoidable.
In theory, one could develop an Android app on a $200 nettop or a $300 netbook. Besides, unlike with iPhone and iPod touch, you don't need to be a developer to load APKs onto an Android phone as long as you didn't get the phone from an AT&T store.
...&T-Mobile. (Score:2)
Again, you're talking about developers. Not users. Developers for the most part are not users; users for the most part are not developers.
But in order to load an application that Apple hasn't approved on the App Store onto the iPod touch, a user needs to become a developer.
There's no practical difference between "your phone is locked-down because the maker locks it down" (Apple) and "your phone is locked-down because the carrier locks it down" (Android). No difference whatsoever.
In the latter case, there is competition. I can buy an unbranded phone and plug in a SIM card sold separately (at a discount if I use T-Mobile), or I can buy a phone from a different carrier that doesn't lock it down (again T-Mobile), and it'll still run the same apps from the same Market. But if I want to run apps for the iPhone and iPod touch, on the other hand, all units
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's kind of dumb and no manufacturer will bother to pay attention. Nice try at fear-mongering, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it fear mongering when an entire market, particularly the mobile market, is moving in that direction? What makes you think they won't try to move that lock down up the stack?
Android vs. BREW vs. PSP (Score:2)
Is it fear mongering when an entire market, particularly the mobile market, is moving in that direction?
Moving in what direction? BREW is more locked down than Android, and well-known handheld game consoles are even more locked down than BREW.
Re:Good news (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep dreaming. Nobody will care about a FSF endorsement, most people have never even heard of them and I'm sure they don't have any kind of budget to really push this.
worst case scenario - there is no change and status quo remains
ideal scenario - it works
If no one tries, there is definitely no change. so I am all for it.
Appliances that displace computers (Score:2)
worst case scenario - there is no change and status quo remains
No, the worst case scenario is that locked-down appliances will displace computers in the home market. They've already done so for set-top video gaming (until the NES came out, it was common to connect an 8-bit home computer to a TV), and iPad looks like Apple's attempt to do the same to netbooks.
Re: (Score:2)
And, likewise when I'm giving recommendations about hardware, I'm considering how well supported it is in terms of the standards. While I've no particular objection to other people using Windows if need be, I do realiz
Support time per purchase (Score:2)
Yeah, because only getting 10+ years of support for a version of Windows is so unreasonable. I mean, I can still get patches and backports of all my apps and kernel changes to a 10 year old version of Debian, right?
The difference is that one can upgrade from one version of Debian to the next without paying another $100-200 to an operating system publisher. So the support period for those versions covered under a single purchase is comparable: a single Windows OS and its service packs for 10+ years, or several versions of Debian for 10+ years.
Re: (Score:2)
``Keep dreaming. Nobody will care about a FSF endorsement''
I don't know for sure, but I expect the people behind the Linksys WRT54GL, the Nokia N900, a whole bunch of Android devices, OpenPandora, and a lot of microcontrollers and programmable logic devices may not agree with you. The whole appeal of these devices is that they put you in full control, which is precisely what the FSF endorsement is about.
Re: (Score:2)
Where can I walk in and try one? (Score:2)
Nokia N900
Is not sold in stores in my part of the United States. Without a floor model that I can pick up and play with, and without a critical mass of people who have mail-ordered the device such that I'm likely to know someone who uses one, I don't know whether the screen and input are to my liking.
a whole bunch of Android devices
Why is it that the ones sold in the United States without a cell phone plan don't have the Market?
OpenPandora
Same problem as N900, plus they still can't make enough to meet demand.
Re:Good news (Score:4, Informative)
People do understand the difference, they just overwhelming don't care.
No they don't. By and large, people don't understand what "software" is, or how "data" is different from "executable code", much less the difference between open and proprietary solutions and the way it affects them as consumers and users. Go talk to just about anyone out of the field. They all carry around smartphones: general purpose computers with internet access, but they have NO idea how or why they work. At the very best, they've learned that they can download "apps" from a "store".
Re: (Score:2)
It's a spectrum, but there is a definite difference (in how your computer treats these files) between a correct elf binary with execution bit set and a plain text file. People who know the difference know not to download *.exe while looking for music, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't read that into the text you quoted. If you did, congratulations. But it's not what the person you are replying to actually said, nor is it necessarily what he meant.
I don't know about that
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I temporarily switched my mother over to Linux for a bit because Vista wasn't dealing well with
Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
I believe that the concept is that hardware can be made to prevent free software from loading, for instance, a chip to check for digital signatures to prove the code is "authorized", and that therefor the non-libre hardware can prevent you from running the software you want, forcing you to have to use software that isn't libre.
What About Tivo? (Score:2)
chip to check for digital signatures to prove the code is "authorized"
Which is exactly what Tivo did with their Linux stack. Modify the Linux stack in a Tivo and the device is broken due to some kind of hashing.
I think the FSF is on the right track, but the inexorable problems of clever people circumventing the GPL will turn a good idea into an unpleasant situation.
If the FSF made the essence of the label basically GPL friendly hardware with no binary software blobs with some limited backward kernel versio
Incompatible endorsements (Score:4, Insightful)
Because of the "incompatible endorsements" part, I doubt that hardware manufacturers will bother with it. Which is too bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you keep referring to them as the F$F.
Do you hate them for some reason? Can you explain it in a rational, sensible manner?
Re: (Score:2)
I was just asking a question. You seem to be the one that is slightly... unstable.
Re: (Score:2)
So in other words, by any definition you're a troll. Glad to see you admit it. Now get back under your bridge before the sun comes up and turns you to stone.
Leave it to the FSF to go to the outer edges (Score:5, Insightful)
Julie
www.opensourcesubnet.com
DoD and NASA? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm just wondering if there are any traditional control freak agencies that would welcome such an endorsement?
The theory being they could access all the specs giving them more faith in the system itself.
Maybe the FSF needs to find a congresscritter who is scared of pre-hacked computers/servers/routers/switches with components made in China.
Re: (Score:2)
It is totally fair that if you want the FSF's endorsement you've got to open all the software on the product, and license any software patents.
Ummm, was that intended to be sarcasm? The FSF doesn't have to endorse anyone at all. If they want they could say you have to use 100% recycled materials, donate 80% of profits to saving the whales, and that you have to whistle the Swiss National Anthem in a banana suit to get their endorsement.
a giant boiling vat of legal implications
What the hell?
Is there some "a g
Re: (Score:2)
The person who buys the product should own it, they bought it. Seems like some folks would rather lease products while claiming to sell them.
where's the boundary? (Score:2)
Incompatible Endorsements? (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, so apparently the idea behind the "Works with Windows" and "Made for Mac," and similar being incompatible is that a user might think that the hardware requires these pieces of proprietary software. However, wouldn't the FSF's endorsement itself be sufficient clarification that this isn't the case? This seems more a matter of ego-stroking, much in the same way that they insist on the "GNU/Linux" name as another condition of endorsement when there is, in all likelihood, precisely one person on the planet who cares about the difference.
I'd admonish the FSF that injecting petty politics into what should be a technology-based endorsement doesn't do anybody any favors, but frankly, I'm not sure I have to. These two requirements alone will ensure that nobody ever applies for this thing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree. While I like this movement overall, I don't think they should be shooting for this kind of exclusivity.
"Works with Windows" and "Made for Mac" are marketing stickers. In fact, they are exactly the same kind of marketing sticker the FSF wants to use.
It's the hardware inside the box that should count for the FSF endorsement, not the labels on the box. If I can hack the hardware and do what I want with it, why in hell would I care that the manufacturers have entered marketing agreements with Micros
What is true freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
I know people have trouble accepting it, but I want to offer once again the philosophical principle that true freedom implies the right and ability to commit yourself and to constrain your future actions. This principle should be very acceptable to the FSF, because it is the basis for their argument that the GPL is more free than BSD style licenses. Superficially, the BSD is more free, because it let's you do whatever you want. But the FSF argues that the GPL is actually freer, because it let's you do whatever you want only as long as you let others do whatever they want with the result. Imposing this limitation on freedom, paradoxically, increases freedom.
And really, this should not seem paradoxical, because we see the same principle all the time in everyday life. Every time someone signs a contract, he commits to performing certain actions and thereby limits his own freedom. The same thing happens when two lovers promise to be faithful. The point is that the essence of true freedom requires the ability to voluntarily limit your own freedom.
This is where the FSF, along with much of the network community, has gotten off on the wrong foot with some of these hardware technologies, in particular Trusted Computing. These technologies allow you to make credible commitments to limit your own freedom. You can promise to run only certain software to handle certain data, and failure to honor your promise can be detected.
It should be clear that, as with contract, marriage, and other areas where we make binding commitments, as long as these kinds of promises are voluntary, allowing them actually enhances freedom. Yet the FSf doesn't see it that way. They are so angry and upset at the notion that people may make promises only to run certain code that they are doing all they can to make such promises impossible to make credibly.
I can understand the concerns that these technologies could be made mandatory. That would obviously be an unacceptable infringement on freedom. But we don't eliminate marriage just because some people are unfairly forced into marriage in certain cultures. We don't eliminate contract just because some are coercive. We fight the unjust arrangements while recognizing the value of a system which allows people to make binding commitments.
The same approach should be applied to Trusted Computing. We should support voluntary adoption of the technology, while vigorously opposing efforts to make it mandatory.
Unfortunately I don't see much prospect of the FSF changing its position on this issue; Stallman is not notoriously amenable to reasonable persuasion. But I hope the larger community can start to look at these matters with open eyes, and not feel obligated to follow the FSF in lockstep.
Re:What is true freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is valid in the case of things like contracts, but generally those tend to be two-sided. EULAs tend to be almost entirely one-sided contracts where in exchange for basic operation of the device you are giving up all ability to "own" the hardware. Can't quite phrase it like I prefer, but there it is.
True, but it's a forward freedom instead of an immediate freedom. BSD guarantees immediate freedoms, at the expense of forward freedom.
Trusted Computing is generally not a problem at all so long as you, the user, hold the keys. The problem arises, and the FSF is entirely right about it, when you the user hold none of the keys and have no option to get out of the cage. It's not so much you agreeing to run only certain software, so much being told as such and having no recourse.
Well, they may not be made mandatory, but there is certainly a desire from many entities (Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA) to make them de-facto.
He's amenable to what he sees as reasonable, of course ;)
I don't think the larger community does follow the FSF in lockstep. Instead, the FSF charges on ahead with their more extreme vision and the rest of us slowly push towards that while making the compromises that they won't. But there are some lines where attention must be paid lest the FSF's polar opposites, the fans of lock down and anti-user security, do an end run and try to shove us all in the box.
But beware, there are more than a few people on slashdot these days who will aggressively attack you for suggesting even bare minimum levels of openness.
Re: (Score:2)
This is where the FSF, along with much of the network community, has gotten off on the wrong foot with some of these hardware technologies, in particular Trusted Computing. These technologies allow you to make credible commitments to limit your own freedom. You can promise to run only certain software to handle certain data, and failure to honor your promise can be detected.
FSF has no beef with hypervisors or signed binaries, they just want the users to have the keys to the engine. Please explain how not being able to sign your own binaries on your own hardware is benefiting you, the user. You could say: "I would not be able to get the software I need because no one would distribute it on these conditions", but that argument falls flat on its face the very moment you look at the actual software and hardware market. You are going to pay for the software being written, right? So
Re: (Score:2)
*makes wanking motion with hand*
Re: (Score:2)
We should support voluntary adoption of the technology, while vigorously opposing efforts to make it mandatory.
Why do the words "useful idiot" spring to mind? As if todays "software is licensed, not sold" wasn't bad enough, Trusted Computing is the proverbial strings for making the user a puppet. I'm sick and tired of producers who can't let go of their products, but feel a disgusting need to micromanage what, where and how I can use it. Your delusional theory that consumers will have a choice is proven wrong by broad industry standards that mean you can either bend over or return to the stone age. DVDs and Blu-Rays
If not this, then what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hardware mfgs won't go for this
Consumers won't care
There aren't enough people who _do_ care to make a difference
Some of this may be true, stark reality. But if that's the case, then I ask, what do we do instead?
A lot of us feel strongly that the rise of constrained, "walled garden" computing, especially in mobile devices (phones, iPad, etc.) is a Bad Thing(tm). These mobile devices, along with increasingly complex embedded systems, may well be the future of computing. These days, computing = access to information. Do you really, really want your information device to be nothing more than a puppet for someone else to control? We've all read the books and seen the movies - we know where this road ends. I don't want to go there.
Already, the corporate-owned and operated consolidated media is doing its best to spoon-feed everybody the daily ration of irrelevant crap or pre-digested "here's what to think" news stories. And due to the trend we're discussing, soon the only place we'll be able to get any information at all is with our fully-controlled, censored, happy happy joy joy goodcitizendevices.
But this gets worse, because once the corporations control everything, it's only one small step away from government abuse. Been paying [go.com] attention [eff.org] to the trends [eff.org] lately? Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-law enforcement, but there must be balance. When all tech is locked down and we have no choices, it will be too late to wonder if we should have just allowed it to happen.
So, honestly, if this FSF effort isn't the answer, what is? Because as long as we want to remain a free people, we can't just stand by and watch, if not facilitate, as a select few take full control of the systems we rely on for our information.
Re:If not this, then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The majority of the comments that say the manufacturers won't go for it is in response to the exclusivity requirement - the need to either have the FSF badge (assuming the product qualifies), or the Made for Mac / Works with Windows badges, but not both. The reason appears to be entirely political, since the idea that people interested in the FSF badge would be "confused" about it appearing alongside other badges like those.
That is why it won't fly - manufacturers are not going to drop the "MfM" and "WwW" badges in favour of the FSF one entirely down to consumer base; there are going to be a lot more people who want to know at a glance if the product is Windows or Mac (or perhaps even both at the same time!) compatible than there are people looking at the FSF's endorsement (at least at this very early stage in its life cycle).
So, the idea is a good one. The exclusivity requirement is *totally brainless* and will almost guarantee the project will be DoA or have extremely limited penetration in the market, defeating the entire object of the exercise.
Might be the only market left open to them. (Score:3, Interesting)
Wonks are always going about how the Cloud is going to kill the PC, and how Smartphones and Netbooks are replacing the traditional PC market.
If they are even close, which I doubt (were' just at the mainframe of the mainframe / PC cycle) then people who want more than a Smartphone or Netbook will need something.
Catering to the market of tinkerers left over after everyone else has moved to the "it just works" appliance crowd, they are exactly the kind of people who will want machines they control 100%.
Re: (Score:2)
people who want more than a Smartphone or Netbook will need something.
Then they can buy something, but for a sticker price greater than most home users are willing to pay. Appliances are for home users; computers are for businesses that can afford one.
Re:Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)
Err, "F$F"?
You mean you wish to emphasize, by a clever use of the dollar sign, the fact that you think the FSF is a multi-billion-dollar pit of money-grubbing, avarice-crazed wackos who worship wealth like it was a deity and who think that "profit" is a justification for any and all actions, up to and including slavery, mass slaughter, wholesale destruction of environment etc?
Now, I've heard the FSF being accused of being a bunch of pot-dazed, lazy hippies, but the "apex of corporate greed" is a rather new one on me. Does Armani even make Stallman-sized suits?
Could you elaborate?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. No OEM is gong to chase this endorsement, and even if they do get it, they won't be putting in on their retail packaging.
Re: (Score:2)
;-;