@lxo
But there are more things you could do. Here are some more suggestions:
Make the ryf program a multi tiered program, with the lower tier being the current situation and the higher tier not allowing non free firmware. Initially you won't have many submissions for this higher tier. That's fine. Some people will aspire to get there, and start working on free firmware. Even if they fail, they still may do stuff that improves the world.
@mjg59
But there are more things you could do. Here are some more suggestions:
Make the ryf program a multi tiered program, with the lower tier being the current situation and the higher tier not allowing non free firmware. Initially you won't have many submissions for this higher tier. That's fine. Some people will aspire to get there, and start working on free firmware. Even if they fail, they still may do stuff that improves the world.
@mjg59
@lxo
So your goal, as the fsf, should be to come up with a plan to eradicate that non free software. I know it will be an uphill battle, but the whole GNU project was an uphill battle and that never stopped you before. It shouldn't stop you now.
I already made a few suggestions as to how you could use the ryf program to make that happen. You dismissed some of those options for reasons that I agree make sense.
@mjg59
So your goal, as the fsf, should be to come up with a plan to eradicate that non free software. I know it will be an uphill battle, but the whole GNU project was an uphill battle and that never stopped you before. It shouldn't stop you now.
I already made a few suggestions as to how you could use the ryf program to make that happen. You dismissed some of those options for reasons that I agree make sense.
@mjg59
@lxo
You (the fsf, not you personally) came up with a rule that allows you to ignore the fact that it is there so you can live your live with computing infrastructure that is under your control for as much as possible. I get that.
But I know that you know, deep down, if you are honest with yourself, that the non free software is still there and that the rule is an illusion.
@mjg59
You (the fsf, not you personally) came up with a rule that allows you to ignore the fact that it is there so you can live your live with computing infrastructure that is under your control for as much as possible. I get that.
But I know that you know, deep down, if you are honest with yourself, that the non free software is still there and that the rule is an illusion.
@mjg59
@lxo
I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying, so I'm going to give it one more try and then just give up.
I'm not going to insult your intelligence by doing a socratean dialogue here. I know you know that non free firmware is software, and that as it is not free, it would be better if it were made free.
@mjg59
I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying, so I'm going to give it one more try and then just give up.
I'm not going to insult your intelligence by doing a socratean dialogue here. I know you know that non free firmware is software, and that as it is not free, it would be better if it were made free.
@mjg59
@mirabilos
This was just after we founded our company and it was just fun to do
@miodvallat @spaceraser
This was just after we founded our company and it was just fun to do
@miodvallat @spaceraser
@lxo
It's modifiable, therefore it's software, therefore it should be free.
That's consistent and makes sense.
Yes that's difficult to reach today. The GNU project has accepted similar compromises in similar situations in the past, and a hardware certification program that encourages that could go a long way into fixing that.
But sure, tell me I need to go cripple the Debian kernel instead of admitting you were wrong.
@mjg59
It's modifiable, therefore it's software, therefore it should be free.
That's consistent and makes sense.
Yes that's difficult to reach today. The GNU project has accepted similar compromises in similar situations in the past, and a hardware certification program that encourages that could go a long way into fixing that.
But sure, tell me I need to go cripple the Debian kernel instead of admitting you were wrong.
@mjg59
@lxo
Oh come now. The ryf program is a hardware certification badge. Why would you create a hardware certification badge if you weren't trying to influence hardware manufacturers?
I vehemently disagree with you that your stance is consistent. If it's theoretically updatable, it's software. Artificially crippling your hardware so that you can't update it anymore it's like putting your fingers in your ears and going "La La La can't hear you"
@mjg59
Oh come now. The ryf program is a hardware certification badge. Why would you create a hardware certification badge if you weren't trying to influence hardware manufacturers?
I vehemently disagree with you that your stance is consistent. If it's theoretically updatable, it's software. Artificially crippling your hardware so that you can't update it anymore it's like putting your fingers in your ears and going "La La La can't hear you"
@mjg59
@lxo
This is not the strategy that the fsf chose to make, and that's fine. It also won't work every time, and that's also fine. But some people will be convinced, and become a member of the community, and that's a good thing.
I do think that having blobs is fine if there is no alternative, for very much the same reasons as why the GNU project started off by accepting non free kernels while replacements were being written.
@mjg59
This is not the strategy that the fsf chose to make, and that's fine. It also won't work every time, and that's also fine. But some people will be convinced, and become a member of the community, and that's a good thing.
I do think that having blobs is fine if there is no alternative, for very much the same reasons as why the GNU project started off by accepting non free kernels while replacements were being written.
@mjg59
@lxo
Also, no, I'm not just associated with Debian, I've been a Debian Developer for just over 25 years now, and have been a DPL candidate thrice. Trust me when I say that we don't welcome the non free blobs. Our strategy however is one of pragmatism: if people need to buy expensive hardware to run free software, that's a barrier to adoption. We keep the barrier low in hopes that it will convince some people.
@mjg59
Also, no, I'm not just associated with Debian, I've been a Debian Developer for just over 25 years now, and have been a DPL candidate thrice. Trust me when I say that we don't welcome the non free blobs. Our strategy however is one of pragmatism: if people need to buy expensive hardware to run free software, that's a barrier to adoption. We keep the barrier low in hopes that it will convince some people.
@mjg59
@lxo
I don't think it's a trend. Even so, you said, and I quote, "a piece of software that you don't stand a chance of modifying yourself, because it's digitally signed by the vendor so that you can't".
Not all non free firmware is like that. Yet the ryf campaign requires that no firmware be updatable as though it were.
So, when a replacement free firmware is built, a device that has the RYF badge will be less free than one that doesn't.
@mjg59
I don't think it's a trend. Even so, you said, and I quote, "a piece of software that you don't stand a chance of modifying yourself, because it's digitally signed by the vendor so that you can't".
Not all non free firmware is like that. Yet the ryf campaign requires that no firmware be updatable as though it were.
So, when a replacement free firmware is built, a device that has the RYF badge will be less free than one that doesn't.
@mjg59
@hyc
Right. I remember using it with my business partner in 2003, I think? Ages after it made sense, of course. But we always had an account on the same system, so I just misremembered 🙂
@spaceraser
Right. I remember using it with my business partner in 2003, I think? Ages after it made sense, of course. But we always had an account on the same system, so I just misremembered 🙂
@spaceraser
@spaceraser
(For that you'd need a 1968-era SDS940 computer, but hey you'd get analog video conferencing. Old enough?)
(For that you'd need a 1968-era SDS940 computer, but hey you'd get analog video conferencing. Old enough?)
@spaceraser
Also there's the collaborative work they did in the mother of all demos, but hey
Also there's the collaborative work they did in the mother of all demos, but hey
@spaceraser
I said, specifically, IRCv3. Older versions of IRC are pretty old.
The only thing that springs to mind which is more old than the first version of IRC are things like 'talk', which doesn't work with more than two users and which, I believe, requires that both users have an account on the same host.
I said, specifically, IRCv3. Older versions of IRC are pretty old.
The only thing that springs to mind which is more old than the first version of IRC are things like 'talk', which doesn't work with more than two users and which, I believe, requires that both users have an account on the same host.