[Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian at pelzflorian.de
Tue Aug 16 18:34:07 GMT 2016

On 08/16/2016 06:40 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:
> "Friendly" might have a definition:
> * (in compounds) Not damaging to, or compatible with (the compounded
> noun) E.g. bike-friendly, soil-friendly, dolphin-friendly
> - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/friendly#English
> 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
> software".
> 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?

There are people (such as you) who consider it possible for “free
software friendly” to be applied to the Raspberry Pi. The term is
imprecise. The “line” between friendly and not friendly is fuzzy.
Readers do not know what the author means. Using the term does not go
against the free software principles IMHO like many of the “words to
avoid” do. Clear wording just seems more appropriate. (“Respects your
freedom” would be equally fuzzy if it were not certified according to
clear criteria.)

On another note, if there is a promise to make the PCB free in the
future, maybe it is best to mention this once confirmed.

More information about the Dev mailing list