Re: [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news
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
Tehnoetic's message
().
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
() 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
added).
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
Wikipedia: ).
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
offensively.
Regarding the difference between FSF's RYF-certification and "true"
"respects your freedom" (as pointed out by Paul Kocialkowski on
): I
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
software).
On the ambiguity of "free software
friendly"
(): I
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".
This is the original thread being referenced:
https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004341.html
I am a member!
The debate on the term "free software friendly" is secondary to the main topic of the thread quoted here. The consensus reached on Parabola mailing list is that we should avoid and teach others to avoid using the term "free software friendly" and Richard Stallman also agreed: https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004367.html
However, the main topic of the thread is a different one. While the EOMA68 crowdfunding campaign makes it one of its unique selling points that this EOMA68 board has always been and is a free-design hardware,
"This project has been extremely unusual in that it has been a Libre Hardware and Software project right from the beginning." -- https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop
its hardware design is not free: its chip design is definitely not free as Replicant and Libreboot developer PaulK has noted, its circuit design is not free either and it's been developed with proprietary CAD software, as the project author admits himself:
https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004352.html
Furthermore, we couldn't even find the schematics PDF (which is not circuit design source file) of this EOMA68 board:
https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004361.html
As far as I understood lkcl keeps part of the files needed for producing the circuit boards unpublished until later on. They are NOT under a proprietary license. That would require them to be published first.
Moreover even though he used a proprietary software for designing, that's his, and only his loss. When he publishes those files with a GPL compatible license it will not matter which software was used to create them as long as they are readable and compatible with free software.
I am a member!
Please note that in my previous message and in all my messages on this issue (including Parabola mailing list) I wrote "it's not free-design hardware", which is not the same with "it's proprietary-design hardware". EOMA68 campaign states that the project (including circuit design) it's always been "libre", while looking at the facts Paul, I and other people realized that their statement is not true.
Now, regarding your logic that hardware design which is not published is not proprietary, I'm afraid with hardware it doesn't work like with software. Following your logic, it would mean that none of the currently available board circuits are proprietary. Well, the vast majority of them are proprietary. Please read on.
I'm confident to think that any manufactured device for which a free design is not published is by default a proprietary-design hardware. Sure we can try to reverse-engineer the multi-layered printed circuit board (PCB) and design a similar circuit under a free license, but reverse-engineering is what we do with proprietary software in the software world, don't we?
As far as we know, the EOMA68 board has been produced in a small quantity. FSF has confirmed to have tested one. So if EOMA68 board were a free-design PCB, wouldn't that mean FSF was given that design under a free license? If so, is FSF keeping that free-design source files for themselves? I would say that any of the above scenarios are highly unlikely.
But don't take into account my theory that any manufactured device not having design sources released under a free license is a proprietary-design hardware. Based on facts, EOMA68 board hasn't been "libre [...] from the beginning". Could someone disagree?
Regarding your second point, you're assuming that the proprietary CAD software that the author of the EOMA68 board used can export the design in a modifiable source format fully compatible with a free CAD software like the aforementioned KiCAD. For the sake of hardware freedom, I hope you're right!
As a closing note, I wonder when that "later on" will be that the EOMA68 board project will keep their promise and release the PCB design source under a free license. For what we know, 1 year from now on we would still wonder that.
I might be wrong in the case of hardware designs, but as far as I know,
a copyright proprietor/owner/holder or a redistributor can choose not to
publish the hardware design on the Internet and still be considered
free/libre as long as he does one of the following:
* Provide a written offer together with the physical hardware that gives
anyone the right to request the complete corresponding sources/designs
at least for a period of 3 years after the product's date of
publication. This assumes that the hardware design is under the GPL 3
"or later" license.
* Provide the hardware design together with the physical hardware.
There **might** have other details that I overlooked or forgot to study
or mention, so please read the GPL 3 license for more information.
I am a member!
On 24.08.2016 20:18, Christopher Waid wrote:
> When this text was written LibreBoot didn't exist
I beg to differ. The text we refer to is from summer 2014 after
SouthEast GNU/Linux Fest 2014 took place on June 20-22, 2014.
While FSF awarded the RYF certification to Gluglug for the X60 laptop
preinstalled with deblobbed Coreboot in December 2013.
http://www.fsf.org/news/gluglug-x60-laptop-now-certified-to-respect-your-freedom
And the deblobbed Coreboot has been named Libreboot "during early 2014".
That is, before the summer conference and show edition.
https://libreboot.org/docs/index.html#why
Knowing that, in the beginning of the GNU/Linux Action Show interview
you still falsely stated that ThinkPenguin "makes sure that all the
hardware in your catalog is 100% free software friendly" (57:20). That
includes desktops and laptops.
You went on and said that "every bit of firmware on your laptops is free
software, except for the BIOS which is... outside". (57:26)
Fast forwarding to November 2015 when FSF announces the discounted
ThinkPenguin products for their associate members.
Quoting:
"ThinkPenguin sells free software-friendly hardware, including laptops,
desktops, WiFi adapters (useful if your laptop's WiFi can't work with a
free driver), printers and more."
I guess it's convenient to have FSF recommend their associate members
your laptops and desktops with proprietary BIOS 1 month after their 30th
anniversary in October.
Right after in October you were sending off Libreboot founder and lead
developer to go work on free software for GPS devices, because in your
opinion she "would have done better" . You went on and said the effort
to have free BIOS for older laptops "would have been better spent
elsewhere", because getting software freedom-respecting laptops "is a
harder problem to solve and it is going to require massive amounts of
money".
It's also convenient to let know all FSF associate members that your
devices are OK in respect to freedom:
"5% off free software-friendly devices from ThinkPenguin" --
https://my.fsf.org/
But for you it must be as you say, just a "minor issue" you "can't
afford waste time" on it. For the rest of us, including founder of the
free software movement and the GNU project, it's not:
On 16.08.2016 22:52, Richard Stallman wrote:
> On 16.08.2016 17:14, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:
>> IMO, we should teach users to avoid this ambiguous term. Instead of
>> "free software friendly", they should use the term "compatible with
>> fully free operating systems" if the hardware is compatible with free
>> distros endorsed by FSF.
>
> I agree. The FSF could post something about this. I will suggest it
> to the campaigns people.
>
> In the long term, I hope that our endorsement, RYF, will set a
> standard and that people will come to see other terms, without clear
> and strict definitions as inadequate.
I am a member!
I would definitely contribute the little I have to a free-design circuit board which also respects software freedom, but sadly EOMA68 board doesn't have a free-design circuit and it's an error to think the project leader "is trying to make EOMA68 [board] 100% libre", given the fact he has the circuit design sources, but doesn't want to release them under a free license. He only promises he will do that "once sufficient units are hit" which is a vague statement that puts into question the promise.
For now, the facts show us that the even though the crowdfunding campaign promotes the project as "libre hardware right from the beginning", it doesn't have a free-design circuit. AFAIK and I'm no expert in designing boards, Bulgarian company Olimex actually has been designing and manufacturing free circuits for years. (or tens of years?) Tehnoetic is currently evaluating how software freedom-respecting the Olimex boards are or can become. The preliminary results look promising. :-)
https://www.olimex.com/Products/OLinuXino/open-source-hardware
The designs will be released under a free license. Bitching on the project like that because of nothing, during the most important period of the campaign... what a weak move, tct.
I am a member!
It's not me who have raised this issue, it's PaulK, Replicant and Libreboot developer. Almost 10 days ago, on Aug 15.
https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004341.html
I looked for facts and agreed with Paul. People in the Parabola (distro preinstalled on Libre Tea version of EOMA68 board) community also looked at facts and agreed. After 2 days, the discussion came to a consensus and Parabola people started working on correcting the original news entry about EOMA68 board at parabola.nu:
https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004372.html
It is one of the authors of the original version of the news entry who has brought up this issue again after 1 week. That was yesterday.
To be clear, no deadline has been fixed for releasing the circuit design source files under a free license. Until then, it's incorrect and misleading to promote this board as free-design hardware or "libre hardware right from the beginning". Not even now it's not free-design hardware.
I'm now asking FSF if with the EOMA68 board prototype they have also received the circuit design sources or a written offer to guarantee the right to request these sources.
tct, that original email is about misleading information in the Parabola project's news post. It has nothing to do with anything lkcl has done and is supportive of the project.
I am a member!
The misleading information in the Parabola project's news originates in the misleading information in the EOMA68 campaign page. I believe I have quoted several times already this statement:
"This project has been extremely unusual in that it has been a Libre Hardware and Software project right from the beginning. Many projects claim a degree of “open-ness”, using the word “open” in order to attract users and developers, but a simple in-depth investigation of such projects quickly reveals the claim of “open-ness” to be misleading or outright false." -- https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop
It's ironical that they point fingers to other projects that claim their hardware to be "libre hardware" even though it's not libre when you look more closely. Well, let's look together more closely to EOMA68 board. Are the PCB source files (the circuit board design/layout source files) under a free license? No. It hasn't been "right from the beginning", it's not now. When (if) it's going to be? We don't know. We aren't offered a deadline.
And please don't say "it has nothing to do with anything lkcl has done". Have you read Paul's conversation with him? It's been linked here several times:
"Then it is fair to say that the circuit board design is not free at this point but may be freed later." -- PaulK, https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004349.html
"The question is whether the source form of the circuit board as sold are free or not. Based on the elements I grasp from your answers and what was reported in this thread, the answer is visibly no. [...] Please make it clear if I'm wrong, otherwise there is no further need to discuss this matter." -- PaulK, https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004352.html
> It's ironical that they point fingers to other projects that claim their hardware to be "libre hardware" even though it's not libre when you look more closely.
First of all, that statement is about claims of being "open", not "libre".
But that's a fairly minor point. Here's what really matters:
"The only exception to this rule to release everything in advance is the PCB CAD files for the Computer Card. We’re planning to release the PCB CAD files for the Computer card once sufficient units are hit that ensures any third party manufacturing runs will not undermine the project’s development or stability."
This is a quote which is from the exact same place where the commitment to being completely libre is talked about. I know you can't have missed this, and it has been there since day 1. You simply cannot be more straightforward than this.
> Have you read Paul's conversation with him? It's been linked here several times:
I was the first one to link it. Of course I read the conversation.
What you linked to is where lkcl had a minor disagreement regarding what exactly the lack of PCB CAD files for the A20 computer card means. Paul is not critical of the EOMA68 project based on this at all, at least not in that thread.
I am a member!
Saying indirectly that they have made an exception to hardware freedom for the Computer itself(!) while still claiming their Computer "has been libre hardware right from the beginning" is outrageous and indeed should make people angry on them, not on me. People should demand the circuit design sources. Unless brainwashed by the EOMA68 librewashing marketing.
Regarding PaulK's correspondence with EOMA68 author, well Paul is applying basic logic to show him and everyone subscribed to the Parabola mailing list that the EOMA68 computer doesn't have a free circuit design, thus it doesn't qualify as libre hardware.
> indirectly
That statement is not "indirect". It explicitly states exactly what is being withheld.
> exception to hardware freedom for the Computer itself
OK, let's get this straight:
The freedom of the users has absolutely nothing to do with the design file of the computer card. Nothing. You cannot just 3-D print the computer card; you have to order hundreds of A20 SoCs, because there's a minimum order quantity, plus all the other components and the cost of assembly, which means spending at least hundreds if not thousands of dollars if you want to make a modified version of the card that's still worth less than $50. It's not even close to cost-effective.
The "freedom" you are talking about is not actually freedom at all, but the technical capability of someone like you to compete by producing exactly the same computer card at a much lower cost. Which would undermine the whole EOMA68 project if it happens too soon, because you can spend far less money since you aren't doing the actual development work.
If you can't wait for your hand to be held so that you can compete with virtually no effort, design your own computer card. Nobody is stopping you.
I am a member!
They don't say directly that the Computer itself(!) is not free-design PCB, meaning their Computer is Not libre hardware (at least not yet and a deadline hasn't been given). No, they claim that their Computer is and has always been libre hardware from the beginning. That's hypocrisy. And they use librewashing with the laptop case to make you believe the hardware freedom of the Computer itself(!) is secondary. Like you're trying to do now.
Last time I checked the complete laptop is over $ 1K and there are several people who have pledged for that. With that money anyone of them can pay for several prototypes of the same or otherwise improved circuit design.
Anyway, users need free-design hardware even if they don't have the design printed as a physical board. It's important to be able to study the circuit, to better understand their computer, to propose improvements etc.
If hardware freedom is not important for users, then why emphasising it in the crowdfunding campaign?
Here is what I think backers should do:
1. Demand a clear deadline for the release of the circuit design sources under a free license.
2. Demand to stop promoting their Computer as "libre hardware" until they release the circuit design sources under a free license.
3. Demand the Computer is shipped to them along with the circuit design sources under a free license, even though the shipping is done before the official deadline.
4. Demand the above conditions are met for further backing the crowdfunding campaign.
Sadly, there is no Libre Hardware Foundation yet, with the authority to enforce those demands if the project wants their endorsement. I hope the Free Software Foundation will make a statement at some point that the Libre Tea Computer Card is not free-design/libre hardware. At least it's not not until the circuit design is released under a free license.
I've added my contribution to this topic, it's now up to other people to analyse the facts, debate and hopefully reach a consensus.
PS I'm interested in Real libre hardware by today's standards, like Olimex hardware. Until EOMA68 becomes libre hardware, it's of little interest to my business as I can build laptops and desktops with more easily available ARM boards, of the same software freedom-respecting level as the EOMA68 computer.
> They don't say directly that the Computer itself(!) is not free-design PCB
Now you're just talking out of your ass. How is literally saying that the design is unavailable, right at the same place where it's mentioned that all the other designs are available, not direct?
> meaning their Computer is Not libre hardware
Hardware cannot be "libre" in the sense that a creative work like software can. So what we have here is a minor disagreement on the definition of "libre hardware" and a complaint that the Parabola developers said something misleading by using this term. (Yes, the EOMA68 campaign uses this term too, but it's clarified, as I have already pointed out, so it's not misleading within the crowdfunding campaign.)
> And they use librewashing with the laptop case to make you believe the hardware freedom of the Computer itself(!) is secondary. Like you're trying to do now.
I don't know what you mean by "librewashing". The fact that's most important is that the Libre Tea card meets the FSF's very strict criteria for the "respects your freedom" certification, this is a new product rather than a refurbished product, and the project can lead to substantial improvements for us in the long run. As an end-user who doesn't have thousands of dollars to invest in a computer card manufacturing business, I don't care that I don't have the files I would need to do that without designing a new computer card. It has absolutely nothing to do with my individual liberty. What matters is that the software running on the computer is all libre software, to the full extent possible, and it is. If I'm understanding correctly, the laptop even has libre keyboard firmware. I don't think your refurbished ThinkPad laptops have that.
> Here is what I think backers should do:
Seriously? Make demands right at the end, when demands cannot realistically even be responded to in time, let alone acted upon? All following your advice at this time could possibly do is sabotage the project.
Not to mention, you're suggesting that people demand enabling someone like you to price-cut them by selling exactly the same thing with far less effort, thus sabotaging the overall effort anyway.
I cannot claim to know your intent, but it doesn't look good, let me tell you, and I certainly won't be recommending your store any time soon.
I am a member!
Saying
PCB CAD files for the Computer Card is the only exception to this rule to release everything in advance
isn't
PCB CAD files for the Computer Card are not free.
or
our Computer Card is not libre hardware while the rest of our laptop (the case!?) is.
I hope everyone sane can make the difference between direct and indirect and reach the conclusion the EOMA68 project doesn't say directly that their Computer is NOT free-design hardware. They wouldn't admit that directly even when Paul was asking for a binary yes/no response.
> Hardware cannot be "libre" in the sense that a creative work like software can
Quoting Richard:
"Free hardware design [...] means a design that permits users to use the design (i.e., fabricate hardware from it) and to copy and redistribute it, with or without changes. The design must provide the same four freedoms that define free software." -- https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html
qed
> I don't know what you mean by "librewashing"
Painting a product completely in libre to sell better, of course. Similar to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing
EOMA68 is NOT libre hardware. That's a fact. Remember, EOMA68 is NOT libre hardware. In case you doubt it, document yourself. In the end everyone sane will reach this simple conclusion: EOMA69 is NOT libre hardware. That's what the Parabola project had to correct. Libre hardware is free-design hardware and has a definition provided by the GNU project. -- https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html
> All following your advice at this time could possibly do is sabotage the project
Demanding EOMA68 Computer to be libre hardware as claimed is not sabotage, it's the right thing to do. You're spreading FUD, because you don't have the facts to back your assumptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
> Not to mention, you're suggesting that people demand enabling someone like you to price-cut them
More FUD. Grow a brain!
> Saying ["]PCB CAD files for the Computer Card is the only exception to this rule to release everything in advance["] isn't ["]PCB CAD files for the Computer Card are not free.["]
You're really grasping at straws here to claim that this is "indirect". The wording is very clear: the PCB CAD files for the computer card are not being released at this time.
> Quoting Richard:
He was defining "free hardware designs", not "free hardware". He has rejected the terms "free hardware" and "libre hardware" several times. Such as in that exact article you linked to, the paragraph immediately preceding the one you quoted.
> Painting a product completely in libre to sell better, of course.
This campaign isn't doing that. The Libre Tea card is marketed as respecting your freedom (or rather, as not having any known blockers to RYF certification). This is 100% true. The campaign says that all design files have already been released, with the one exception of the computer card PCB CAD files. This is 100% true.
> EOMA68 is NOT libre hardware. That's a fact.
EOMA68 (which is a standard, not a particular piece of hardware) is libre in every sense of the word. An EOMA68 computer card doesn't have its PCB CAD files released. That's the fact. I guess you could say that that computer card's design is not libre, and depending on what you mean by "libre hardware", you could say that that computer card is not "libre hardware".
But this clearly isn't what the EOMA68 campaign means when it says it is a libre hardware and software project, anyway.
> You're spreading FUD
Oh, the irony. The guy telling everyone to not back a perfectly good crowdfunding campaign for a perfectly good hardware project that's going to be a massive benefit, possibly essential, to our entire community because a hardware design (that we the users can't even use) isn't being released yet; that guy is accusing me of spreading FUD.
I am a member!
> You're really grasping at straws here to claim that this is "indirect". The wording is very clear: the PCB CAD files for the computer card are not being released at this time.
I never said this statement is not "clear". But again, this is not DIRECTLY saying the computer design is not free. Or DIRECTLY saying that the computer is NOT libre hardware. No, actually they say it's libre hardare right from the BEGINNING.
But I'm required to repeat myself too many times on this forum. I'll stop repeating myself. Other people can quote my explanations if they find my explanations useful to fight the misinformation of people such as this one I'm replying to now.
> [RMS] was defining "free hardware designs", not "free hardware". He has rejected the terms "free hardware" and "libre hardware" several times.
No, he hasn't.
Quoting RMS:
> Then we can refer to hardware made from a free design as “free hardware,” or “free-design hardware” to avoid possible misunderstanding. -- https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html
He prefers "free-design hardware" to avoid misunderstandings about the price of the hardware (it's not gratis). Libre doesn't have this disadvantage "free" has in English. As he always explains in this article too:
> To emphasize that “free”refers to freedom, not price, we often use the French or Spanish word “libre” along with “free.” -- https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html
> you could say that that computer card is not "libre hardware".
I'm happy you too were able to reach this logical conclusion. My time spent replying to you was not entirely wasted then.
> The guy telling everyone to not back a perfectly good crowdfunding campaign
Yet another MISINFORMATION. I never told anyone to not back the EOMA68 campaign.
> for a perfectly good hardware project that's going to be a massive benefit
Here I'm going to quote Paul's recent statement:
> keep in mind that this is nothing new or groundbreaking (not to undermine the project and the efforts associated with it). -- PaulK, https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004414.html
> Note that the level of free software support brought by the EOMA68 is not really something new. There have been dozens of computers, some of which come with a free board design, using platforms that are as good for freedom, especially with Allwinner (but there are lots of others). The linux-sunxi community has been working hard on those for years and years, so this is nothing new or specific to the EOMA68. -- PaulK, https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004414.html
As I previously stated, my business is interested in Olimex boards which have the same level of software freedom and a free design too. It's just that no one has built laptops or desktops based on Olimex boards preinstalled with free GNU/Linux distros. Yet. I'd be happy to see other businesses moving faster than Tehnoetic with this plan.
The EOMA68 Computer card would have been interesting to study if it were TRULY libre hardware. If there was any guarantee offered that the product will be shipped with the free PCB CAD sources, I would even backed the project myself.
> Yet another MISINFORMATION. I never told anyone to not back the EOMA68 campaign.
But you did. You suggested to backers and potential backers, and I quote, "Demand the above conditions are met for further backing the crowdfunding campaign." You suggested this at a time when it is basically impossible for demands to be met, because said campaign is almost over.
> Here I'm going to quote Paul's recent statement:
The statement you quoted treats the entire computer as a monolith and calls that "EOMA68", which fails to represent the best aspects of the project (particularly modularity). This is the benefit I speak of; it is much easier and cheaper to develop a new computer card that can fit into any housing that meets a standard than it is to develop a whole new monolithic device like the Pyra. This benefit has nothing to do with whether or not the first computer card is unusual in terms of its libre software support.
Also, I can't tell exactly what computers he's talking about since none are mentioned by name, but I can tell that none of them have ever been granted RYF certification from the FSF. The Libre Tea card is set to get that certification, which is groundbreaking when you consider that this is a product specifically produced with that purpose in mind, rather than a product produced for a different purpose that has been refurbished later.
> The EOMA68 Computer card would have been interesting to study if it were TRULY libre hardware.
There is no "the EOMA68 computer card". The A20 computer card is a computer card, the first. Anyone can design a new computer card, including you. You don't even need to wait until the end of the campaign; you can start right now, and you can use whatever SoC you want as long as it is capable of meeting the EOMA68 standards. It won't even been that much of an effort, comparatively speaking, because you don't have to worry about designing the casing of the final product, space for keyboards, mousepad, screen, etc. The A20 computer card is the only piece you're complaining about not being "libre hardware", so why don't you put your money where your mouth is and develop a "libre hardware" computer card yourself, if you're truly interested in the project and yet truly don't trust Luke to release the PCB CAD files for the A20 computer card?
You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
I am a member!
> You suggested this at a time when it is basically impossible for demands to be met
I disagree. It only takes few minutes to write an update which states the deadline for the free PCB design sources release (demand #1) and a guarantee that the sources will ship with the product (demand #2), modify accordingly statements such as the one quoted several times here ("Libre Hardware and Software project right from the beginning"), "modern Libre 802.11n USB-Wi-Fi adapters" (those are RYF-certified software freedom-respecting WiFi adapters, not free-design/libre hardware WiFi adapters), "a complete Libre Laptop" (demand #3), and thus demand #4 is met.
> because said campaign is almost over.
It's awful that this whole campaign has run on a BIG LIE: that the computer card/board is libre hardware and that it has always been from the beginning. Many backers have been fooled into believing that. But now that the campaign is getting closer to an end, it's exactly the moment to request such demands and have them respected, for the campaign to become fully funded, even extra funded!
Otherwise, let's get something straight. The campaign is not for funding a standard, or for helping with 3D-printing cases, it's for MASS PRODUCTION of a computer board which IS the COMPUTER without peripherals, but nevertheless, THE COMPUTER. You can't say the COMPUTER is LIBRE HARDWARE while the COMPUTER is an EXCEPTION to LIBRE HARDWARE and expect to get away with it. No, people who value hardware freedom will NOT shut up. And that's exactly what Paul, I and other people have done. We have raised AWARENESS and asked the promotional texts be CORRECTED if the FREE PCB DESIGN is NOT RELEASED.
> [ThinkPenguin] sells [proprietary BIOS] computers because of a lack of options
I disagree again. There is LIBREBOOT
> I disagree again. There is LIBREBOOT
"LIBREBOOT" is not hardware.
The rest of your post is the same FUD as before, just with more SHOUTING.
I am a member!
On 25.08.2016 11:42, Christopher Waid wrote:
> I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. Wake me when you've
> actually contributed something of significance and aren't just trying to
> undermine those working on solving these problems. For some of us it
> isn't about financial gain. We actually want to see 100% free hardware.
I don't need you to take me seriously. I'm merely stating the facts and
drawing logical conclusions. I could be just a new free software user
with no contribution what so ever.
If you believe that what I'm doing is undermining your projects, then
you might be do something wrong in your projects. Like claiming your
proprietary BIOS laptops and desktops are OK in regard to software
freedom as your WiFi adapters. Like claiming EOMA68 board is libre
hardware although no one has access to the PCB CAD files under a
free/libre license. Like not guaranteeing EOMA68 campaign backers that
they will receive the PCB CAD files under a free license along with the
EOMA68 product when shipped. Like claiming EOMA68 board is a
breakthrough in the line of software freedom. Like undermining Libreboot
project and spreading FUD about it (that Libreboot is only for old
x86-based laptops). Like not providing config file to build LibreCMC.
Like LibreCMC not building at all lately. Like corrupting FSF to
recommend your proprietary BIOS laptops and desktops.
I have already responded to your FUD regarding EOMA68 elsewhere. (By the way, very mature of you to change your avatar to that FUD.) However:
> claiming your
> proprietary BIOS laptops and desktops are OK
> corrupting FSF to
> recommend your proprietary BIOS laptops and desktops
I have never seen Chris justifying proprietary BIOS. He sells such computers because of a lack of options, and the FSF linked to multiple stores (not just Think Penguin) selling such computers pre-installed with GNU/Linux for that same reason.
I'm sure if the EOMA68 campaign is successful, you will see the current x86 products at Think Penguin gradually phased out and replaced by EOMA68 computers (gradually for a few reasons, but in particular because of how slow the A20 computer card is and the fact that Trisquel is still x86 only).
I think it's important these issues be discussed. Let's all remain polite when doing so even if we come to different conclusions. Also please don't -1 a post unless it's spam.
I'm going to be completely honest: I'm not using the "-1" button (I never do), but if someone were to use it on a post which is essentially nothing more than FUD, I wouldn't harshly criticize them.
After thinking about this for a while I do agree that this does not satisfy common requirements for libre hardware currently. After all, if I wanted to manufacture the computer card I would not be able to do so.
However on my personal opinion I think that this is like putting the cart before the horse. Just like root_vegetable said, people haven't yet received the cards or the laptop housings. Compared to a standard laptop the situation is much better. Designing a computer card for the housing is MUCH simpler than designing a PCB for a standard laptop.
The ingenuity of lkcl's campaign is that it's a system conforming to a single standard instead of singular devices. We don't have to depend on a single manufacturer. Assume the worst comes and lkcl never publishes the computer card's PCB design files: then perhaps tct's plan with the olimex boards could bring forth a free hardware computer card that could be used in the laptop/desktop housings instead!
By the way, does anyone here know the situation with the laptop housing? Is it libre hardware? It seems to have been mentioned in the Parabola message thread, but I can't find the message now.
> By the way, does anyone here know the situation with the laptop housing? Is it libre hardware?
The A20 computer card is the only piece of hardware that has not had everything possible released under a libre license. Even the keyboard on the laptop housing has libre firmware, if I understood correctly.