Le mardi 16 août 2016 à 16:40 +0100, Josh Branning a écrit : > On 16/08/16 16:22, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote: > > On 16.08.2016 17:57, Josh Branning wrote: > > Quoting the designer, "Full schematics [are] available." > > https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop > > > > Please note that in the campaign's text he doesn't specify if the > > schematics are available under a free license nor he links to the > > schematics (but he specifies that for the "3D-printed casework design > > files"; he says that those [are] available under GPLv3 license"). > > However, if this is the specification: > > > > http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA-68 > > > > then I gather that it's under CC BY-SA 3.0. I couldn't find the > > schematics PDF Luke was telling us about. Probably he will publish it > > after his volunteers review it? I don't know. > > I couldn't find them either. If they're CC BY-SA then I guess they are > free, and not just open or proprietary. But it's difficult to tell or > make any valid assumption without seeing them.
I think it's safe to assume "proprietary unless proven otherwise", since this is, after all, how copyright works. > > > In regards to free software friendly, it isn't 100%; totally, as there > > > is no way to run the GPU using free software. And the same problem > > > exists if one were to claim it 100% "respects your freedom", so I can't > > > see how saying something is "free software friendly" is much better, as > > > the same problem(s) exist(s) in both wordings. > > > > I see your point. But I was asking more, if it makes sense to add "free > > software friendly" to the list of words to avoid: > > > > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html > > I think "free software friendly" is fairly synonymous with "respecting > freedom". I really don't think this is a subjective matter: words have a given meaning, which can be vague or precise, but is well defined. Acting on how people perceive wording by adding a layer of personal understanding makes it impossible to draw a line. > In the event that someone were to create a 100% "free software friendly" I don't think "100% free software friendly" makes any sense, because "friendly" doesn't carry a precise enough meaning here. It's like saying that something is "100% easy to achieve": "easy" isn't precise enough. On the other hand, "100% achievable with a single screwdriver" is. -- 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
