Re: [libreplanet-discuss] [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news
This issue of "you said it is 'libre' but I prove it's not", and even
the issue regarding the older publication on ThinkPenguin's site, can be
easily solved by changing terms/words accordingly there. There's no need
to make everyone mad at each other.
For example, we can publish updates on these publications, that have the
purpose of replacing confusing terms like "free software friendly" with
"compatible with free/libre system distributions" (or the similar term
that RMS suggested).
Remember, the issue about usage of confusing words have two ways to be
dealt with:
* We can discuss and try to convince each other on why our position is
the right one (whichever side it is).
* Or we can simply fix the text for now.
* Or we can do both described above.
I am a member!
On 25.08.2016 15:25, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> This issue of "you said it is 'libre' but I prove it's not", and even
> the issue regarding the older publication on ThinkPenguin's site, can be
> easily solved by changing terms/words accordingly there. There's no need
> to make everyone mad at each other.
It's not just about terminology. It's about deliberately misinforming
the people to back your project because it's been libre hardware and
libre software "right from the beginning". And also misinforming people
to think it's OK for their freedom to buy laptops with proprietary BIOS
rather than with Libreboot.
I'm just going to clarify a couple of points, since these two posts ended up in a separate thread:
1. tct is complaining about the lack of PCB CAD files for the computer card (which are not provided as of this time, as the campaign page explains under the "A Libre Approach" section).
2. the Libre Tea computer card does not come with a proprietary BIOS. the computers with proprietary BIOS that tct is talking about are the ones in Think Penguin's current catalog.
Full context is in here:
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/re-dev-misleading-information-eoma68-news
I am a member!
Thank you, Ali. I really appreciate you taking the time to answer my
call and share your opinion on the libreplanet-discuss mailing list.
On 26.08.2016 16:28, Ali Razeen wrote:
> If this is true in the libre hardware world,
I follow your logic, but I'm not sure there is an exact analogy libre
software <-> libre hardware.
> then at the moment, EOMA68 is libre hardware right from the beginning.
I can identify several times used in this sentence and the one below: T1
is the inception (beginning) of the project. T2 is the present day
(now). T3 is the earliest shipping time of the hardware to the backers.
It is my understanding that the sequence is T1 < T2 < T3 and not T2 < T3
= T1.
> If they release the hardware to their backers like myself, but do not provide the PCB design sources, *then* we can say they are not libre hardware.
If at T3 the hardware ships with free PCB design sources, then at T3
we'll have proof and thus be able to say EOMA68 *is* libre hardware (by
today's standards = at board level, not necessarily at chip level).
At T2 based on the proof that the laptop case CAD files have been made
available under GPLv3+ at some point in the interval [T1, T2) we are
only able to say EOMA68 has the laptop case as libre hardware, but we
can't say EOMA68 is libre hardware, because at T2 we don't have proof
that the EOMA68 computer itself (EOMA68-A20) is libre hardware (at board
level).
But, if at T2 we have the EOMA68 project's guarantee (I don't think we
have that guarantee stated, at least not on the campaign's page) that at
T3 EOMA68 computer will ship to the backers with free PCB design
sources, then at T2 the *EOMA68 project* can say that at T3 the EOMA68
will be libre hardware (they have the power to do know that, because
they have designed the board and it's their decision if and when to
release the design sources). And at T2 *we* can say (like PaulK said)
that the EOMA68 "may be" libre hardware in the future or, based on the
track record of the project leaders with the laptop case CAD files under
GPLv3+, that it's *probably* going/*likely* to be libre hardware at T3.
From T1 to T2 and continuing until T3, neither the EOMA68 project can
say their hardware *is* libre hardware, nor we can say it *is* libre
hardware. Instead, they can say that only the laptop case *is* libre
hardware.
Now, let's assume that the EOMA68 project has a change of heart and
decides to release the free PCB design sources at least to its
campaign's backers at T2, and not wait until T3. Then at T2/now we are
able to say that the EOMA68 hardware *is* libre hardware.
But I fail to see how sending the free PCB design sources to the backers
at T2 and not wait until T3 will modify/reflect in the statement quoted
many times here that "[EOMA68 hardware] is libre hardware right from the
beginning".
Also, I don't see any reason why this statement refers to T1, since at
T2 (and T2 > T1) we don't have any proof that EOMA68 hardware is libre
hardware. If at T2 not even the backers don't have the free PCB design
sources, I wouldn't consider true to even state that "[EOMA68 hardware]
is libre hardware *now*", yet alone essentially stating that "[EOMA68
hardware] is libre hardware since T1".
I hope this makes sense for everyone.
I am a member!
On 26.08.2016 19:27, Ali Razeen wrote:
> I follow your argument but to make sure we’re on the same page, let me try to rephrase it in my own words so that you can agree or disagree. I believe you claim that we cannot say that the EOMA68 is “libre hardware from the beginning” because we have no proof that it has indeed been libre hardware since the very beginning of the EOMA68 project (which would be T1, in your email). Perhaps we can claim that “EOMA68 is libre hardware from the time the hardware is shipped to its backers” when they eventually release their PCB designs, or maybe we can claim “EOMA68 is libre hardware today” (which would be T2) if they released the PCB today. But even if they did release it today, we cannot claim that “EOMA68 is libre hardware from the beginning”.
>
> Have I understood you correctly?
I think so.
I am a member!
On 25.08.2016 15:47, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:
> On 25.08.2016 15:25, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
>> This issue of "you said it is 'libre' but I prove it's not", and even
>> the issue regarding the older publication on ThinkPenguin's site, can be
>> easily solved by changing terms/words accordingly there. There's no need
>> to make everyone mad at each other.
>
> It's not just about terminology. It's about deliberately misinforming
> the people to back your project because it's been libre hardware and
> libre software "right from the beginning". And also misinforming people
> to think it's OK for their freedom to buy laptops with proprietary BIOS
> rather than with Libreboot.
Richard Stallman has just confirmed me that FSF has not received the PCB
design sources along with the Libre Tea Computer Card.
I hope that now everyone understands that this EOMA68 board is *not*
libre hardware as claimed.
Tiberiu
"proprietary BIOS"
what the hell are you talking about
it use uboot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_U-Boot
The only piece of blob in it (witch wont be activated on libre tea cards) is MALI witch is almost completely reverse engineered
https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop/updates/cedrus
tct has been lumping together criticism of Think Penguin's catalog with his criticism of the EOMA68 campaign. I can't say I know why he is doing this.