[Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

Paul Kocialkowski contact at paulk.fr
Mon Aug 15 17:55:35 GMT 2016


Le lundi 15 août 2016 à 18:49 +0100, Josh Branning a écrit :
> On 15/08/16 18:09, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > 
> > Hi, it appears that there is some misleading information in the EOMA68 news:
> > 
> > * "New Libre Hardware Crowdfunding Project"
> > 
> > Saying that the hardware is libre or free is an overstatement. The
> > integrated
> > circuits are not libre, so the whole hardware (which covers both integrated
> > circuits and circuit boards) is not.
> Not 100%. Though at the moment, it is very difficult to get 100% libre 
> hardware, if you are including things such as reproducible HDLs for CPUs.

Indeed, I don't know of a single device that has free hardware currently.
However, this is no excuse to pretend it's the case!

> It is only fairly recently that people are able to run 100% free 
> software, and that didn't go from 0 to 100% free within the space of a 
> few years, it took much chiselling away, removing and replacing the bits 
> that were proprietary, piece by piece.

Definitely, I also believe this is the way to go: liberating software one step
at a time!

> > The circuit board may be libre, but I
> > couldn't find the circuit board layout description files. Note that
> > schematics
> > don't make the circuit board libre, but only documented.
> Neither could I find these things.
> http://rhombus-tech.net/faq/#index14h2

So I guess this means it's not going to be a free circuit board. Too bad.
The article should definitely be updated to reflect that, then.

> > I think the title should be reworked, depending on whether the circuit board
> > design is libre or not.
> > 
> > * "Respects your freedom"
> > 
> > It is an overstatement to say that the computer can respect freedom. The
> > computer is composed of both hardware and software aspects. Hardware does
> > not
> > respect its users freedom (see above). In addition, the hardware has at
> > least
> > one major feature that cannot work with free software: its GPU. Thus, we
> > can't
> > say that its software aspects respects freedom (despite being a candidate to
> > receive the FSF's RYF certification).
> I agree.
> > 
> > 
> > Thus, it would be more accurate to say that the device is free-software-
> > friendly, which is vague enough to not be contradictory with the facts.
> > 
> > Of course, this situation is much better than many other computers out
> > there,
> > that can't even startup without proprietary software.
> > 
> I agree.
> > 
> > What do you think about making those changes?

Someone who can modify the article should speak up when a consensus was reached
here. In the meantime, I'm around for discussing this!


Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/attachments/20160815/8d0cbae9/attachment.sig>

More information about the Dev mailing list