Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Julie Marchant]

On 06/10/2016 12:20 PM, Todd Weaver wrote:
> Well this thread took a turn way off topic.
> 
> We are trying to have PureOS, our distribution reviewed, nothing more.
> So let's discuss those points.

It is a relevant point to consider because you are behind PureOS. Not
because you being a malicious actor makes your distro proprietary per
se, but because we should be much more weary of your word than most
people's.

> This near impossible task

Not "near" impossible. *Impossible*. Google, a multi-billion dollar
corporation, could not get Intel to cooperate. Some small company
selling low-quality laptops (judging by what the guy from LAS said about
what he got) isn't going to fare any better.

> we are working to solve
> the ME and FSP being issued from Intel. We'd welcome you signing our
> petition[1], as one of many ways we are trying to solve this.

Again, proving that you are either an idiot or a liar. If Google could
not sway Intel with the Chromebooks, your little petition certainly won't.

> We are not competing with "existing FSF endorsed systems" we are
> competing to have people stop using Apple, HP, Google, Acer, etc.
> preloaded with OSX, ChromeOS, or Windows. So the progress bar is to
> clearly show where we are in relation to those companies, while still
> providing the information needed to show we are not FSF RYF certified.

Your advertising suggests that you are making progress toward something
like what Minifree sells, but new. This is not the case. You are no
better than Think Penguin, if you are even as good as that, and you will
never be any better as long as you are basing your hardware on x86.
Regardless, it doesn't matter who you are competing with. What matters
is that you have an infographic on your website that suggests you have
done work which you have not. This is deceptive.

> I am unsure why we should be verbally punished by working with the
> community to advance our common goal.

Uh, no. You have worked with the community to market some overpriced
laptops with promises you cannot keep. I suspect PureOS, and seeking FSF
endorsement of it, is just another part of that: a vanity OS that you
can point to as proof that you do important work for the libre software
community. Otherwise, you would just be using Trisquel, like Think
Penguin does.

> By this logic we would have to write all the software ourselves? That
> is completely counter to the point of free software licenses.

Of course not. Where you crossed the line here is having an infographic
suggesting you did the work when you had nothing to do with it. This is
just one aspect of a whole marketing campaign centered around suggesting
that you can do more than you can with x86.

If you had started an honest business of selling laptops that work with
Linux-libre, just a competitor for Think Penguin, there would have been
no objections. Heck, you would have been celebrated; it's nice to have
more options, even if those options are not perfect. This is not what
you did. You pretended, and continue to pretend, that you can do more
than that. You can't. Not with post-2013 x86.

> It is clear from the above "review" that GNU-linux-libre needs to focus
> on the singular task of reviewing PureOS for distribution endorsement,
> which is our request. And not any tangential or unrelated topics that
> we are not yet trying to get FSF to certify.

This conversation is not getting in the way of PureOS getting reviewed
for GNU FSDG status. The only thing it can possibly get in the way of is
your business's propaganda.


-- 
Julie Marchant
https://onpon4.github.io

Protect your emails with GnuPG:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature