[Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

Paul Kocialkowski contact at paulk.fr
Tue Aug 16 16:22:41 GMT 2016

Le mardi 16 août 2016 à 16:40 +0100, Josh Branning a écrit :
> On 16/08/16 16:22, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:
> > On 16.08.2016 17:57, Josh Branning wrote:
> > 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.

I think it's safe to assume "proprietary unless proven otherwise", since this
is, after all, how copyright works.

> > > 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".

I really don't think this is a subjective matter: words have a given meaning,
which can be vague or precise, but is well defined. Acting on how people
perceive wording by adding a layer of personal understanding makes it impossible
to draw a line.

> In the event that someone were to create a 100% "free software friendly" 

I don't think "100% free software friendly" makes any sense, because "friendly"
doesn't carry a precise enough meaning here. 

It's like saying that something is "100% easy to achieve": "easy" isn't precise
enough. On the other hand, "100% achievable with a single screwdriver" is.

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/20160816/2fba4292/attachment.sig>

More information about the Dev mailing list