Hi, Le lundi 15 août 2016 à 18:49 +0100, Josh Branning a écrit : > On 15/08/16 18:09, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > > > > Hi, it appears that there is some misleading information in the EOMA68 news: > > > > * "New Libre Hardware Crowdfunding Project" > > > > Saying that the hardware is libre or free is an overstatement. The > > integrated > > circuits are not libre, so the whole hardware (which covers both integrated > > circuits and circuit boards) is not. > > Not 100%. Though at the moment, it is very difficult to get 100% libre > hardware, if you are including things such as reproducible HDLs for CPUs.
Indeed, I don't know of a single device that has free hardware currently. However, this is no excuse to pretend it's the case! > It is only fairly recently that people are able to run 100% free > software, and that didn't go from 0 to 100% free within the space of a > few years, it took much chiselling away, removing and replacing the bits > that were proprietary, piece by piece. Definitely, I also believe this is the way to go: liberating software one step at a time! > > The circuit board may be libre, but I > > couldn't find the circuit board layout description files. Note that > > schematics > > don't make the circuit board libre, but only documented. > > Neither could I find these things. > > http://rhombus-tech.net/faq/#index14h2 So I guess this means it's not going to be a free circuit board. Too bad. The article should definitely be updated to reflect that, then. > > I think the title should be reworked, depending on whether the circuit board > > design is libre or not. > > > > * "Respects your freedom" > > > > It is an overstatement to say that the computer can respect freedom. The > > computer is composed of both hardware and software aspects. Hardware does > > not > > respect its users freedom (see above). In addition, the hardware has at > > least > > one major feature that cannot work with free software: its GPU. Thus, we > > can't > > say that its software aspects respects freedom (despite being a candidate to > > receive the FSF's RYF certification). > > I agree. > > > > > > > Thus, it would be more accurate to say that the device is free-software- > > friendly, which is vague enough to not be contradictory with the facts. > > > > Of course, this situation is much better than many other computers out > > there, > > that can't even startup without proprietary software. > > > > I agree. > > > > > What do you think about making those changes? Someone who can modify the article should speak up when a consensus was reached here. In the meantime, I'm around for discussing this! Cheers, -- Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices Website: https://www.paulk.fr/ Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/ Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
