El Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:13:24AM +0300, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic deia:
> 
> Now, about refunding the donations made to FSF since 2015. I can't be
> the only person realizing that FSF has been one of the main reasons
> Libreboot was started and has been the biggest promoter of Libreboot
> ever since. Through their RYF certification, FSF has been instrumental
> to the success and financial stability of the Libreboot project and her
> lead developer. In my opinion those donations were well deserved.
> Moreover, donations to nonprofits are non-refundable.
>

Yes, no organization could work if they never know when people would
suddenly decrease their budget. What is perfectly reasonable for any
donor is to stop any future donations for whatever reasons, or even
try to convince others to stop future donations. Past donations should
already be spent or allocated and can't be returned, that seems obvious.

> she hasn't requested the FSF's RYF certification of the Libreboot
> laptops be revoked.
>

Even if she wanted how could that work ? 

The only reason RYF certification should be revoked should be that the 
certified hardware is found to have freedom problems unknown of when 
it was certified (either new facts discovered or new analysis of the
consequences of the facts previously known). It's not like minifree
is going to recommend people to install windows on their products. 

It would be not credible for the FSF to grant RYF just because someone
wants to (they check their criteria are fulfilled). Likewise it would make
no sense for FSF to de-certify something just because someone says so. 
Checking the criteria needs to be triggered by someone requesting it, but 
just as this trigger is not enough by itself to achieve certification, 
a request for decertification would not be enough to decertify anything. 

Besides, if someone looses faith in a certifier it makes little sense
to ask from them either new certifications or decertifications, because
they no longer value their decisions.

What any seller can do at their choosing is to advertise or not the
certification status of their merchandise. Although any seller
considering that buyers may trust certifiers the seller does not trust
may decide to continue advertising the certifications as long as
they're true, because the information might be interesting to customers
who don't share the same trust decisions.

I don't know what's the point of furthering this discussion, since
we don't have enough knowledge of facts, and probably we shouldn't have. 
I don't have any reason to believe FSF is discriminatory and at the
same time I don't see anything Leah would gain by raising all this for
no good reason. I guess the only thing I can say to GNU, FSF and libreboot
people including Leah is thanks for your contributions to software freedom.
I hope they continue in whatever way is less harmful to all.
I think the need for a deblobbed coreboot still exists. 
I wrote in another list why I think the effort to liberate old hardware 
(as new as feasible, but that's unfortunately old) is worthwhile. 

https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2016-August/011182.html

I don't really know exactly how to go on from here: 

- reconcilement, and staying in the previous situation ? 

- libreboot fork in let's say GNUboot and libreboot and what kind of
collaboration between them ? and who would lead the hypothetical
GNUboot ?

- libreboot goes on outside GNU, lead by Leah, and any unhappy 
  libreboot contributors stay in coreboot only ? 

But still, I keep reading this stuff, just around Software Freedom Day. and 
not feeling any happy. At least I think I understand what people is 
saying. Except a small part:

https://libreboot.org/gnu/

   "If this were FSF Europe, where anti-discrimination laws are much
   stronger (FSFE is in Germany), they'd likely have a lawsuit on their
   hands. That may still be possible, but it's probably not necessary in
   this case."
   
Can someone explain this paragraph to me ? I'm not asking for details
on any particular situations, which are likely private. More on
legislation in Germany and Boston and specially why some cases might
need a lawsuit and some cases not (in general, an abstract analysis
would do, even if it does not apply to this case or covers more
possible cases).

I'm very unused to these kind of cases, but in general, a lawsuit
might not be necessary if parties reach some agreement. If parties
reach an agreement then publicity of the issue should not be necessary
either ? So in which cases might this arise ? Let's imagine the
parties reach an agreement for whatever reason (which might be related
to what could each party obtain in a lawsuit and the likeliness of it,
regardless of whether each party thinks laws, society, lawyers, juries
or judges are as they should be) but other members of the public with
knowledge of the situation think the agreement, or at least the
silence about the case is not in the public interest despite the
parties being entitled to agree to whatever they want.

If there is no agreement, what other options are there for a lawsuit
not being necessary ? If there were insufficient proof for something
believed true it would be more like a lawsuit not being possible, easy
or advisable, or even likely but I wouldn't call it unnecessary. If
there was fear of worse consequences in case of a lawsuit (like
further harassment, suffering, vengeance or anything) then the lawsuit
might not be safe, advisable, worthwhile, wise, etc. But I still
wouldn't call it unnecessary. If there's something you think should be
a crime but it isn't in the applicable current law, then you could say
it is not necessary to sue, but you wouldn't say it is possible.

So when is boycott to one party necessary and lawsuits possible but 
probably unnecessary ? 

Maybe I'm reading too much in just one word. Nobody is perfect in 
our choice of words.


Reply via email to