Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The GNU ethical repository criteria will only harm free software.

[Andrés Muñiz Piniella]

El 31 de octubre de 2015 02:44:26 GMT+00:00, Logan Streondj 
<streondj@gmail.com> escribió:
>I think having a rating system is a great idea.
>It allows for projects to know how they can improve their score.
>Really gameifies playing along with RYF.
>
>In terms of repositories, currently the best and most available one is
>sourceforge.net
>They release their server code under an Apache license.
>
>Sure they try to make money through advertising,
>But as a lifetime dedicated libreware developer,
>I think making more with libre software is very good.
>
>I wouldn't be surprised if Sourceforge had one of the highest RYF
>ratings.
>
>Libre,
>Logan
>
>
>On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Thomas HARDING
><tom@thomas-harding.name>
>wrote:
>
>> On 30/10/2015 05:08, arthur_torrey@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not surprised that you don't know of cases where the labeling
>>> question has been a deciding factor, since given the RYF
>restrictions I'd
>>> consider a manufacturer that wanted to be able to sell to Windows
>users to
>>> be crazy to even apply....  They would get to the page and see that
>it
>>> wouldn't do them any good.....
>>>
>>> I'm not saying that RYF has to change, though I think it should... I
>am
>>> saying that we need a NON-DISCRIMINATORY 'Runs on GNU/Linux' badge
>program
>>> with logos that can be put on products NEXT to the 'Runs on other
>stuff'
>>> badges!
>>>
>>> ART
>>> ------------------don't
>>> Arthur Torrey - <arthur_torrey@comcast.net>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> >> [...]
>>
>>> because of that restriction. As a hardware consumer I am HURT,
>because
>>>> in most cases I can't look at a product box and see a 'Runs on
>>>> GNU/Linux' label next to the 'Runs on <other system>' label. The
>Free
>>>> Software world is HURT because the proprietary system user never
>gets
>>>> to see that he can use his hardware under GNU/Linux as well as the
>>>> proprietary system....
>>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, that's not quite what that criterion says. Compatibility
>labeling
>>> for proprietary OSes is allowed under RYF. ("However, we don't
>object to
>>> clear factual statements informing the user that the product also
>works
>>> with specific proprietary operating systems.") What's not allowed is
>>> promotional labeling for proprietary OSes, which makes sense, given
>the
>>> purposes of the program.
>>>
>>> I also know of no cases where this has been a deciding factor in
>>> certification.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> [I'm a bit puzzled by that discussion, and sick for a week, so if
>missed
>> something please forgive... last but not least I'm not fluent
>> in English]
>>
>> So,
>>
>> Maybe making an obligation to label "Fully Works with genuine
>GNU/linux,
>> without proprietary kernel blobs nor other proprietary [anything]"
>>
>> and the correspondant label *to be as prominent as ANY other [OSes]
>labels
>> on the package* and other materials such as website or [anything]
>> regarding any other [proprietary] labels would NOT work. Because what
>we
>> really need is a clear information and avoiding REAL discriminent
>labelling
>> on packaging/sites/whatever.
>>
>>
>======================================================================
>> IMHO, a pretty good APPROVED labelling / with GNU Project endorsement
>> before use (and/or, making abuses suitables), clearly stating :
>>
>======================================================================
>>
>>  * that the device *works plainly* (tipycally, 3d video cards)
>>    with GNU GPLv2 Linux kernel - no blobs, GVPLv3 - no patents,
>>    AGPLv3 (ready-to-use servers or connected devices, ...)",
>>    *furbished with human readable  sources* and [-same exigences-
>>    Free Software [eg: current GNU project chain] re-buildable.
>>    And furbished builded binaries (ready for x, y and z architectures
>>    "only" clearly stated).
>>
>>    That would also *allow* LGPL devels "by exception", or, better,
>>    source+protocols disclosure to only "legitimate users"  where
>>    [governement and international organisations protocols / security
>>     policies are involved -- use case: NSA, NATO, governments, has
>some
>>     of that kind / the user is also exclusively [cited] / specs
>>     dissemination are not desirable... with for exception peer review
>>     (reasonment clash <g>)]
>>
>>    **AND/OR AT OPTION**,
>>
>>  * clearly differenciated label from the above : "having I/O fully
>>    disclosed, published (cvs/so on, tarball address) and furbished
>>    together with on included media [as builded and micro-programmed,
>>    from first version up to that hardware revision], ready for Free
>>    Software DEVEL",
>>
>> without *a bunch of* discriminally prominent labels [proprietary
>> or not] (which is equal and fair, but full "non-prominent" close is
>> foolish, and "as clearly visible as other OSes than the first market
>> targetted" is good enough).
>>
>> That really do the trick.
>>
>> Special label "Works BEST with GNU/Linux (and Open/Net/FreeBSD [...]
>> if they would involve; same statements as upper)" could be endorsed
>> by GNU project, and Linux/BSD/FreeDOS/whatever distributions
>>
>> eg: despite wars against availability of non-free section, Debian
>> is available with several kernels, including GNU Mach/?[Ooops:
>personal
>> memory leak] and FreeBSD, with a reasonable effort, balancing
>publishing
>> latch and volunteers.
>>
>> That's what User Freedom of Choice[1] is -- at least for me.
>>
>> =====================================================================
>>
>> I have been puzzled personnally by policy changes vendors regarding
>> GNU/Linux support several times.
>>
>> Especially with a scanner, which needs a proprietary add-on module on
>SANE
>> to make it works, obviously unavailable on the targetted NSLU-2 I
>planned
>> to use as scanner server, nevertheless, a Free Software package has
>been
>> distributed together with for user interface... And the vendor
>appointed
>> company couldn't disclose...
>>
>>    *
>>   * *
>>
>> In short: make information clear and *non-discriminent* on *real Free
>> Software support* /is the priority/, because *it will avoid the
>current
>> and actual market distorsion* and both "false Free Software support".
>>
>>
>>  * fair harware market
>>  * fair software market
>>  * fair end user information
>>  * fair hardware support developpement
>>  * fair user support regarding fully free operating systems
>>  * fair user support regarding foolish non-free operating systems...
>>  * fair choice offer
>>  * fair labelling
>>
>> Once done, User Freedom will follow and most likely user will
>naturally
>> choose what is the best for him: the warranty given to his freedoms,
>> coupled to a fully functional device. Because the easy choice is what
>> appears as fully functional (nowadays it could likely change a bit
>with
>> the Wolksvagen's pollute cheater microprogram[2], but it seems nobody
>asks
>> appropriateness of other cars manufacturers, nor systems, nor
>generally
>> any problem).
>>
>> *Fair* is the keyword... prominent is not: Free Software advocacy and
>> goals are not "total market domination", as that is /we/ struggle for
>:
>> they are all the *fair* ways to gain Plain Freedom (at least on what
>is
>> computing driven).
>>
>>
>>
>> [1]French people will appreciate "UFC" acronym collision, which is
>>    "UFC - Que Choisir", the largest consumer association here
>>    (fr::Union Fédérale des Consommateurs --- Que Choisir ?).
>> [2]What Dr.HC. Richard M. Stallman says for year: proprietary
>>    programs can intentionally cheat you [les programmes
>>    privateurs peuvent vous mentir --- intentionnellement]
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> T.HARDING
>>
>> --
>> Je suis née pour partager : non la haine, mais l'amour.
>>                                             Sophocle,
>>                            "Antigone" --- 442 Av. JC.
>> Two Steps From Heaven: Universal answer is Fortitude.
>>
>>


>I wouldn't be surprised if Sourceforge had one of the highest RYF
>ratings.
>

I think savannah uses the same in the background. It has a filter system to 
insure the code you upload to a repo is libre.
This will be the next repo I use. I hope I make the cut.
After a couple of HDD failures I don't trust myself to host my own.


-- 
RichmondMakerlabs.uk
Ham United Group