[Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news
tct at ceata.org
Tue Aug 16 19:06:40 GMT 2016
On 16.08.2016 21:34, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> 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
>> 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.
> Clear wording just seems more appropriate. (“Respects your
> freedom” would be equally fuzzy if it were not certified according to
> clear criteria.)
> Using the term does not go
> against the free software principles IMHO like many of the “words to
> avoid” do.
Thank you for your opinion. Still, don't you think that if people
consider to be OK the hardware labeled as "free software friendly", then
this undermines the importance of high priority projects such as
Libreboot (free BIOS) and Lima/Tamil (free GPU drivers)?
> 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.
PS As previously stated, I'm not a Parabola hacker and I only speak for
myself. My opinion shouldn't count for the consensus.
More information about the Dev