[Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

[Josh Branning]

On 16/08/16 16:22, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:
> On 16.08.2016 17:57, Josh Branning wrote:
>>> What do other people on this list think? Should we avoid using the term
>>> "free software friendly" or there is no reason not to use it?
>>
>> I think the article is misleading as it's written at the moment, (by
>> stating it's "libre hardware" rather than "with an open specification").
>
> RMS recommends we avoid using "open" for anything related to computers,
> in order to not seem we endorse the "open source" term and confuse users
> regarding where we in the free software community stand in this
> fundamental matter. This includes avoiding the term "open standards".
> Instead, we should use "free standards" if the standard is published as
> documentation under a free license.

Fair enough.

>
> Maybe a better wording than "with an open specification" would be "with
> publicly available schematics" (or "specification").

Or free schematics/specification.

>
> Quoting the designer, "Full schematics [are] available."
> https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop
>
> Please note that in the campaign's text he doesn't specify if the
> schematics are available under a free license nor he links to the
> schematics (but he specifies that for the "3D-printed casework design
> files"; he says that those [are] available under GPLv3 license").
> However, if this is the specification:
>
> http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA-68
>
> then I gather that it's under CC BY-SA 3.0. I couldn't find the
> schematics PDF Luke was telling us about. Probably he will publish it
> after his volunteers review it? I don't know.

I couldn't find them either. If they're CC BY-SA then I guess they are 
free, and not just open or proprietary. But it's difficult to tell or 
make any valid assumption without seeing them.

>
>> In regards to free software friendly, it isn't 100%; totally, as there
>> is no way to run the GPU using free software. And the same problem
>> exists if one were to claim it 100% "respects your freedom", so I can't
>> see how saying something is "free software friendly" is much better, as
>> the same problem(s) exist(s) in both wordings.
>
> I see your point. But I was asking more, if it makes sense to add "free
> software friendly" to the list of words to avoid:
>
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html
>

I think "free software friendly" is fairly synonymous with "respecting 
freedom". Of course, the FSF has made their certification program for 
specific devices for the latter.

In the event that someone were to create a 100% "free software friendly" 
device that for whatever reason didn't get through the FSF's 
certification process (they probably do exist), I would like to still be 
able to use the term "free software friendly" to describe the device.

>> Perhaps focusing on the positive features, like stating that it can boot
>> up using only free software, is pre-installed with parabola, etc.
>
> I would also add here that the Embedded Controller is free software.
>
>> whilst
>> perhaps also admitting it's apparent flaws (like the lack of libre GPU
>> drivers), would be the most accurate, honest, and least deceptive way to
>> describe EOMA68 when writing an article on the subject.
>
> I agree.
>
> My question still stands, do someone share my opinion that "free
> software friendly" should be avoided and added to the list of infamous
> words to avoid? https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html

I don't necessarily share that opinion.

But I feel the article on parabola news should be updated if and when a 
consensus is reached.

>
> Thanks,
> Tiberiu
>
> --
> https://ceata.org
> https://tehnoetic.com
>