El 31 de octubre de 2015 02:44:26 GMT+00:00, Logan Streondj <[email protected]> escribió: >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. >> >>
>I wouldn't be surprised if Sourceforge had one of the highest RYF >ratings. > I think savannah uses the same in the background. It has a filter system to insure the code you upload to a repo is libre. This will be the next repo I use. I hope I make the cut. After a couple of HDD failures I don't trust myself to host my own. -- RichmondMakerlabs.uk Ham United Group
