[Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

[Paul Kocialkowski]

Le mardi 16 août 2016 à 10:31 +0300, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic a écrit :
> On 15.08.2016 22:23, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > 
> > Le lundi 15 août 2016 à 21:45 +0300, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic a écrit :
> > > 
> > > On 15.08.2016 21:23, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Le lundi 15 août 2016 à 21:04 +0300, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic a écrit :
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 15.08.2016 20:09, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm not really a big fan of the "free-software-friendly" term, exactly
> > > > > because it's vague (laking a definition/criteria) and it doesn't
> > > > > really
> > > > > tell users much regarding how respecting of software freedom that
> > > > > piece
> > > > > of hardware is. That's why a wide range of hardware projects feel at
> > > > > liberty to promote themselves as "free-software-friendly".
> > > > 
> > > > Indeed, it's not very precise, but I don't think that's the goal here. I
> > > > think
> > > > vague statements are fine as long as they are clearly recognized as
> > > > such.
> > > 
> > > It depends on the targeted audience. If that is the general public, I'm
> > > sure that the average user doesn't clearly recognize this term as vague.
> > > 
> > > I believe the targeted audience of the Parabola blog is not only
> > > educated users/free software activists/developers, but the general
> > > public/average computer user.
> > 
> > I mean that the precise wording "free-software-friendly" is intrinsically
> > vague,
> > so I doubt that anyone will understand it as an equivalent of "fully free
> > software" or "freedom-respecting".
> 
> However, both average users and high-profile organizations in the free
> software world are using "free software friendly" to also mean "fully
> free software" or "freedom-respecting".

I don't see the problem or contradiction here. It is vague so it can rightfully
cover both terms. The point is that it is not intrinsically equivalent to one of
those.

> > So the question is whether it's good to use vague wording. I think that e.g.
> > for
> > the news title, it would be fine. Of course, a link to RYF and the single-
> > board-
> > computers page could shed some more lights for anyone interested.
> 
> Given the examples above where "free software friendly" is used by a
> wide range of users, companies and nonprofits for both hardware fully
> compatible with free software and hardware not fully compatible with
> free software, I hope we can reach the same conclusion that we have to
> avoid this ambiguous term which spreads confusion among what is and what
> is not software freedom respecting, thus working against our efforts to
> educate users as part of the free software movement.

I disagree with that conclusion. Using a vague word implies that it doesn't
refer to something more precise -- but it can cover such terms. I don't think
that using a vague/broad expression, that lacks details, is confusing and
misleading. It's just imprecise, which is different.

People who'll understand free software-friendly as fully free are jumping to
conclusion without any basis. The words don't hold that meaning, they are adding
more sense to it than what the words hold.

> To draw a parallel between "free software friendly" and "eco-friendly",
> yes, I believe Purism has pioneered the practice of "software freedom
> washing", similar to greenwashing :-)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing

I agree with this but again, don't see a problem. If Purism had said "free
software friendly" all along, it would have been fine IMO. Sadly, they did much,
much than claiming that.

-- 
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/20160816/4b017c42/attachment.sig>