[Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news
tct at ceata.org
Tue Aug 16 16:40:30 GMT 2016
On 16.08.2016 19:22, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> 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."
>>> 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:
>>> 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.
So I guess both design source files and schematics are nonfree for the
>>>> 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:
>> I think "free software friendly" is fairly synonymous with "respecting
> 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.
"Friendly" might have a definition:
* (in compounds) Not damaging to, or compatible with (the compounded
noun) E.g. bike-friendly, soil-friendly, dolphin-friendly
IMO, this definition points to _compatibility_ for technology (bike is
technology, software is technology). So according to that definition, I
conclude that "free software friendly" would mean "compatible with free
Now let's see where we draw the line. Is the RaspberryPi free software
friendly, in other words compatible with free software?
There is no definition for "free software friendly". And people
understandably (looking or not at the definition of "friendly") tend to
consider it synonymous to "software freedom-respecting", and JoshB
confirmed the rule.
What other people think?
More information about the Dev