On 14/05/12 05:23, [email protected] wrote:
I think that a labeling system is needed, for both hardware and software. IMHO Software
licenses are a good indicator, but it would be nice to have a logo or a small set of them
that can be put on project websites and other appropriate places to say that it is Free
Software, works w/ Free Software, or whatever other attributes may be desired...
(possibly including a "Works w/ Proprietary software" label for those users
just starting the transition, but not quite ready to break totally w/ the proprietary
world)
Hardware I think should have a labeling program as well, and I do NOT think the current FSF
approach is viable because of it's exclusivity... Simple fact, whether we like it or not, is that
proprietary software has a bigger market share, so it is a heck of a lot more valuable for a
computer maker to stamp his product "Works w/ Windows" than "Works w/ Free
Software". Much as I prefer Free Software, if I were a computer parts maker the choice
between the two labels is a no-brainer, and the decision would not be kind to the FSF...
Right now I have to read the fine print on the box, and maybe it will have "Linux
compatible" buried in the package somewhere...
Perhaps it would be possible to have a non-exclusive "Works w/ Gnu/Linux logo
that manufacturers can put on their boxes, next to the evil symbols that we aren't
going to displace - and possibly at least get a bit of extra interest, and help to
dispel the popular notion that it's hard to find hardware that runs on Linux...
Probably several such logos could be developed - In rough order of
desirability - for accessories:
1. Has proprietary Linux Drivers
2. Needs no drivers, or has "binary blob" drivers in the kernel tree
3. Has Free drivers in the kernel tree
For stand alone devices -
1. Interoperates w/ free software
2. Uses at least some free software (i.e. current Android products) AND
interoperates.
3. Allows partial replacement of code w/ owner supplied software, but may have
proprietary bits.
4. "Hacker Friendly" - all code replaceable, no proprietary bits
Obviously a purist would prefer things w/ free drivers that are hacker
friendly, but not everyone is comfortable with Dr. Stallman's level of purity,
and I'd like to at least see SOMETHING that would help me when shopping, and
provide a bit of added pressure to move in the direction of freedom.
ART
------------------
Arthur Torrey
-------------------
I think this is way too much for a bunch of reasons:
_This is too complicated. The point is to make things transparent - you
propose to establish yet another complicated set of labels to a variable
degree (and even you yourself don't see where to draw a line)
_You obviously target free software enthusiasts, and try to make their
life easier (which is nice ;) ) - but not the common user. Our goal
should be to raise awareness among those who DON'T know the difference
of, say, GPL, LGPL and GPLv3.
_The hardware issue is unfortunately out of scope. The label I envision
cannot and must not indicate hardware properties/compabilities/.... . It
should be a _free software_ label.
It makes no sense to put a sticker on hardware that promises some
compatibility that cannot be verified. Even worse wen it claims to do so
only to a "certain" degree. It is impossible to indicate a clear message
that way.
A (one) simple indicator of respect for your software freedom (4
freedoms) is needed: a free software label. nothing more nothing less.
The goal is to make this label so successfull and widespread that you
eventually can start to make conclusions when you DON'T see it. So we
will have almost NO benefit if just a handful of projects support it.
This would be a major undertaking.
