[Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news
Adonay Felipe Nogueira
adfeno at openmailbox.org
Tue Aug 23 14:24:07 GMT 2016
Just now, I **have** subscribed to Parabola's dev mailing list. So I'll
try to catch-up with this topic. :)
I'm inserting libreplanet-discuss and trisquel-users mailing lists as
recipients of this email because of my opinion on Tiberiu-Cezar
I'm also inserting a member of ThinkPenguin as recipient so as to let
him know the issue found by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic, which is discussed
furthermore in this email.
I agree with Paul Kocialkowski's original message
Furthermore, my **last** edit in the original pad
(<https://pad.riseup.net/p/parabola-news-libre-tea-computer>) is perhaps
the most correct one (if the timeslider references don't change over
time, it should be
saved July 24th, 2016. After this version, the misleading text gets
About Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic's message
Indeed, the use of "free software friendly" to also mean "fully free
software" or "freedom-respecting" is a communication noise (article on
Basically, in context of marketing (not sales), a communication noise
happens when **either** the senders or receivers of a message
distort-or-misunderstand the message.
Besides, I'm inserting a member of ThinkPenguin as recipient of this
email so as to let him know the issue that Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic found
in ThinkPenguin's website content. This was done so as to make it easier
for ThinkPenguin to see the issue. This **is not** meant to be taken
Regarding the difference between FSF's RYF-certification and "true"
"respects your freedom" (as pointed out by Paul Kocialkowski on
don't work for the FSF, and I don't speak for them, but I've been
studying the purpose of RYF for some time, and so far I noticed that RYF
certification is meant to say the following message to society: this
products are certified because, by default, they come with **maximum**
free/libre software that our movement recognizes as free/libre, **up to
where free/libre software is known to exist for**, or up to where
there's no technological limitations as to how to interact with such
software (this **differs** from "digital handcuffs).
Rephrasing the previous paragraph: According to what I have researched
so far, the idea of RYF certification **is-not** to say that these
products are "freedom respecting" in a binary (0 or 1; true or false)
scale, but in a gradual scale (which assumes that, once a new free/libre
software is known to work inside secondary embedded processors (e.g.:
some storage devices, some keyboards, some mouses), then the
already-certified products will be given a time limit to provide an
improved version that uses/provides the newly found free/libre
On the ambiguity of "free software
agree that "compatible with fully free operating systems" should be used
instead. Personally, I have caught **myself** using "free software
friendly" sometimes, although I use the other one in most cases.
Besides, using the same reference: I think that the text on GNU.org
about free/libre hardware designs serves as definitive definition to the
hardware scenario. However, as noted on the articles there, it's not
something easy to deny usage of hardware with non-free designs since
there's no know hardware with free/libre design for use that enables
society to do their computing in freedom.
And "RYF certified" can be included inside "free software friendly"
although care must be taken so as not to make the public think that they
are the same, just as it happens in the case of "open source software"
vs. "free/libre software".
More information about the Dev