[Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

[Paul Kocialkowski]

Le mardi 16 août 2016 à 17:01 +0300, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic a écrit :
> On 16.08.2016 11:43, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Well, based on my experience, the masses do understand free software
> friendly as fully compatible with free software. Especially since a
> company with FSF-endorsed hardware states:

But this is not what "friendly" means! "friendly" is inherently vague. It's not
reasonable to act on what some people might add to that meaning: it becomes
impossible to draw a line then.

> "For more information on free software friendly hardware check out the
> Free Software Foundation's Respect Your Freedom web site at: fsf.org/ryf."
> https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/short-interview-christopher-waid-about-
> thinkpenguin-linux-action-show
> 
> Which IMO sends the message "free software friendly" is equivalent to
> "respects your freedom".

This is an interpretation, too. It is true that "free software friendly" covers
RYF. Also, RYF is not equivalent to "respects freedom".

Either way, I don't see the point of showing examples of people using "free
software friendly" in different ways. The words have a precise meaning, that's
all. How it's generally used and the context association feels irrelevant to me.

-- 
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/f4756f42/attachment.sig>