On 3/11/20 10:33 PM, a via libreplanet-discuss wrote: > My post is about getting official comments from > libreplanet and fsf. Of course anybody can > reply, but I already know how people attempt > to defend purism's behavior. > > > On 3/11/20 8:48 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> If I understand you correctly, you believe: Purism marketing talks about >> software freedom and the goal of RYF 100% free hardware, but they don't >> deliver to that level, and they minimize or hide the details. You worry >> that people buy Purism products believing they are getting more complete >> freedom than they actually receive. You doubt Purism's good faith, and >> because you feel FSF should be skeptical rather than gracious about >> these concerns, FSF is making a mistake by giving Purism a platform or >> acknowledgment (at least without some explicit qualifiers from FSF about >> these concerns). Is that right? > > Correct. > > > >> I agree with you that marketing claims should not mislead people about >> the facts of products. Stating a goal of reaching some standard is not >> the same as already being there, and the difference should be plain and >> transparent. > > Correct. > >> I don't find your jump to speculating about bad faith at all warranted. >> There's no evidence that FSF is corrupted in any way around this. And >> there's inadequate (though perhaps non-zero) evidence that Purism has >> any bad faith. > > https://trisquel.info/en/forum/librem13-fully-free-time > > educate yourself. > > About purism they claimed about their notebooks that > there was a real possibility that intel would publish > the software in question. Everybody in the field > know, intel does not publish such > pieces of source software. > > purism claimed reverse engineering was an option. The > software in question is signed. Name a cryptographer who will > agree, that breaking the cryptography is an option? > > As I said, one email to libreboot would have been enough. > Also after people told purism that their claims were > unfounded, purism did not rectify their websites. > > It is swindle if you deceive people in order to gain > money. > > About fsf. > fsf is known to be strict and harsh in matters of free > software. It is a mystery why fsf has acted that amateurishly > about purism. That is why I ask, has fsf received money > or hardware from purism? Are there people who at the > same time represent both fsf and purism? > >> In general, you're more likely to learn and also to get others to listen >> when you express concerns from a position of genuine curiosity without >> hints of accusations and other attacks. > > You do realize I have stated arguments? You have not. A > pattern I have noticed from other defenders of purism. > > fsf has been informed by me and maybe others, how > purism has acted. It makes fsf an accessory in > purism's fraud. fsf failure on this matter results in loss of > credibility among those who are able to look behind > purism's deceptions. > > > >> It can also help to try to create a *strong-man* argument. Generate the >> strongest argument you can for a defense of Purism and FSF, and then see >> if that holds up to scrutiny. That's much more insightful than >> generating weak or straw-man arguments or speculative suspicions. > > Start rebut my arguments. > > > > _______________________________________________ > libreplanet-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
pEpkey.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
_______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
