I think having a rating system is a great idea. It allows for projects to know how they can improve their score. Really gameifies playing along with RYF.
In terms of repositories, currently the best and most available one is sourceforge.net They release their server code under an Apache license. Sure they try to make money through advertising, But as a lifetime dedicated libreware developer, I think making more with libre software is very good. I wouldn't be surprised if Sourceforge had one of the highest RYF ratings. Libre, Logan On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Thomas HARDING <[email protected]> wrote: > On 30/10/2015 05:08, [email protected] wrote: > >> >> I'm not surprised that you don't know of cases where the labeling >> question has been a deciding factor, since given the RYF restrictions I'd >> consider a manufacturer that wanted to be able to sell to Windows users to >> be crazy to even apply.... They would get to the page and see that it >> wouldn't do them any good..... >> >> I'm not saying that RYF has to change, though I think it should... I am >> saying that we need a NON-DISCRIMINATORY 'Runs on GNU/Linux' badge program >> with logos that can be put on products NEXT to the 'Runs on other stuff' >> badges! >> >> ART >> ------------------don't >> Arthur Torrey - <[email protected]> >> > > > >>> >> [...] > >> because of that restriction. As a hardware consumer I am HURT, because >>> in most cases I can't look at a product box and see a 'Runs on >>> GNU/Linux' label next to the 'Runs on <other system>' label. The Free >>> Software world is HURT because the proprietary system user never gets >>> to see that he can use his hardware under GNU/Linux as well as the >>> proprietary system.... >>> >> >> FWIW, that's not quite what that criterion says. Compatibility labeling >> for proprietary OSes is allowed under RYF. ("However, we don't object to >> clear factual statements informing the user that the product also works >> with specific proprietary operating systems.") What's not allowed is >> promotional labeling for proprietary OSes, which makes sense, given the >> purposes of the program. >> >> I also know of no cases where this has been a deciding factor in >> certification. >> >> >> > [I'm a bit puzzled by that discussion, and sick for a week, so if missed > something please forgive... last but not least I'm not fluent > in English] > > So, > > Maybe making an obligation to label "Fully Works with genuine GNU/linux, > without proprietary kernel blobs nor other proprietary [anything]" > > and the correspondant label *to be as prominent as ANY other [OSes] labels > on the package* and other materials such as website or [anything] > regarding any other [proprietary] labels would NOT work. Because what we > really need is a clear information and avoiding REAL discriminent labelling > on packaging/sites/whatever. > > ====================================================================== > IMHO, a pretty good APPROVED labelling / with GNU Project endorsement > before use (and/or, making abuses suitables), clearly stating : > ====================================================================== > > * that the device *works plainly* (tipycally, 3d video cards) > with GNU GPLv2 Linux kernel - no blobs, GVPLv3 - no patents, > AGPLv3 (ready-to-use servers or connected devices, ...)", > *furbished with human readable sources* and [-same exigences- > Free Software [eg: current GNU project chain] re-buildable. > And furbished builded binaries (ready for x, y and z architectures > "only" clearly stated). > > That would also *allow* LGPL devels "by exception", or, better, > source+protocols disclosure to only "legitimate users" where > [governement and international organisations protocols / security > policies are involved -- use case: NSA, NATO, governments, has some > of that kind / the user is also exclusively [cited] / specs > dissemination are not desirable... with for exception peer review > (reasonment clash <g>)] > > **AND/OR AT OPTION**, > > * clearly differenciated label from the above : "having I/O fully > disclosed, published (cvs/so on, tarball address) and furbished > together with on included media [as builded and micro-programmed, > from first version up to that hardware revision], ready for Free > Software DEVEL", > > without *a bunch of* discriminally prominent labels [proprietary > or not] (which is equal and fair, but full "non-prominent" close is > foolish, and "as clearly visible as other OSes than the first market > targetted" is good enough). > > That really do the trick. > > Special label "Works BEST with GNU/Linux (and Open/Net/FreeBSD [...] > if they would involve; same statements as upper)" could be endorsed > by GNU project, and Linux/BSD/FreeDOS/whatever distributions > > eg: despite wars against availability of non-free section, Debian > is available with several kernels, including GNU Mach/?[Ooops: personal > memory leak] and FreeBSD, with a reasonable effort, balancing publishing > latch and volunteers. > > That's what User Freedom of Choice[1] is -- at least for me. > > ===================================================================== > > I have been puzzled personnally by policy changes vendors regarding > GNU/Linux support several times. > > Especially with a scanner, which needs a proprietary add-on module on SANE > to make it works, obviously unavailable on the targetted NSLU-2 I planned > to use as scanner server, nevertheless, a Free Software package has been > distributed together with for user interface... And the vendor appointed > company couldn't disclose... > > * > * * > > In short: make information clear and *non-discriminent* on *real Free > Software support* /is the priority/, because *it will avoid the current > and actual market distorsion* and both "false Free Software support". > > > * fair harware market > * fair software market > * fair end user information > * fair hardware support developpement > * fair user support regarding fully free operating systems > * fair user support regarding foolish non-free operating systems... > * fair choice offer > * fair labelling > > Once done, User Freedom will follow and most likely user will naturally > choose what is the best for him: the warranty given to his freedoms, > coupled to a fully functional device. Because the easy choice is what > appears as fully functional (nowadays it could likely change a bit with > the Wolksvagen's pollute cheater microprogram[2], but it seems nobody asks > appropriateness of other cars manufacturers, nor systems, nor generally > any problem). > > *Fair* is the keyword... prominent is not: Free Software advocacy and > goals are not "total market domination", as that is /we/ struggle for : > they are all the *fair* ways to gain Plain Freedom (at least on what is > computing driven). > > > > [1]French people will appreciate "UFC" acronym collision, which is > "UFC - Que Choisir", the largest consumer association here > (fr::Union Fédérale des Consommateurs --- Que Choisir ?). > [2]What Dr.HC. Richard M. Stallman says for year: proprietary > programs can intentionally cheat you [les programmes > privateurs peuvent vous mentir --- intentionnellement] > > > Best Regards, > T.HARDING > > -- > Je suis née pour partager : non la haine, mais l'amour. > Sophocle, > "Antigone" --- 442 Av. JC. > Two Steps From Heaven: Universal answer is Fortitude. > >
