Slashdot Mirror
FSF Announces Hardware Endorsement Criteria
sveinungkv writes "The Free Software Foundation has announced criteria for the hardware endorsement program 'Respects Your Freedom.' From the announcement: 'The desire to own a computer or device and have full control over it, to know that you are not being spied on or tracked, to run any software you wish without asking permission, and to share with friends without worrying about Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) — these are the desires of millions of people who care about the future of technology and our society. (...) With our endorsement mark and the strong criteria that back it, we plan to bridge that gap and demonstrate to manufacturers that they stand to gain plenty by making hardware that respects people's freedom instead of curtailing it.' While it currently contains some requirements that many may find broader than what they personally need, the remaining criteria would make the FSF endorsement a useful tool when looking for devices that give the owner control over the device they have bought and paid for. The criteria are still open for feedback."
What is cool about software and what makes it conducive to openness is the fact that anyone with a PC can write it, run it, and change it.
Hardware makers suffer no such weakness. The barrier to entry is the high cost of manufacturing, so there is really no significant benefit to release an unrestricted device. Something like the iPod has already proved this.
The FSF's role is complete. It should fade away quietly while people still think highly of the wackjob membership.
Just saw a semi-related post in the firehose: Scary USB marketing device.
So would a marketing gimmick/keyboard emulator which pretends to be a USB flash drive count as free hardware? :/
How about the right to make money off of something that millions find valuable that you labored to create, without fear that someone else will make a copy of it and start selling it themselves?
IMHO, this is good news. Now more than ever before, we need people to understand the difference between open and locked-down hardware, and to help them make rational choices while shopping. To me, it is unthinkable that my personal computers should be remote-controlled by a third party, but the crowds are only beginning to wake up to the pain that proprietary platforms are causing them.
When someone uses a computer, it's not usually the hardware that spies on them. Won't this just give people false security? (If it does anything.)
Because of the "incompatible endorsements" part, I doubt that hardware manufacturers will bother with it. Which is too bad.
I sense much beer in you. Beer leads to intoxication, intoxication leads to hangover. Hangover leads to sobering.
It is totally fair that if you want the FSF's endorsement you've got to open all the software on the product, and license any software patents. I love how the FSF always defines the outer edge completely in favor of the person that buys the product, rather than the one that creates it. I don't think the typical product creator will be interested in this because it seems like it will create a giant boiling vat of legal implications and who wants to sign up for that? But so what? Eventually a happy middle will be found.
Julie
www.opensourcesubnet.com
Why are there exceptions? I understand the practicality of what they are saying, but when you think about the future, an FPGA exception may be where the entire new concept of computing lives.
Wonks are always going about how the Cloud is going to kill the PC, and how Smartphones and Netbooks are replacing the traditional PC market.
If they are even close, which I doubt (were' just at the mainframe of the mainframe / PC cycle) then people who want more than a Smartphone or Netbook will need something.
Catering to the market of tinkerers left over after everyone else has moved to the "it just works" appliance crowd, they are exactly the kind of people who will want machines they control 100%.
Err, "F$F"?
You mean you wish to emphasize, by a clever use of the dollar sign, the fact that you think the FSF is a multi-billion-dollar pit of money-grubbing, avarice-crazed wackos who worship wealth like it was a deity and who think that "profit" is a justification for any and all actions, up to and including slavery, mass slaughter, wholesale destruction of environment etc?
Now, I've heard the FSF being accused of being a bunch of pot-dazed, lazy hippies, but the "apex of corporate greed" is a rather new one on me. Does Armani even make Stallman-sized suits?
Could you elaborate?
Sorry, but it will only run Gnu/Hurd. But they include a copy of Duke Nukem Forever.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Yeah, I'm real sure most manufacturers care about whether the F$F endorses their products. You might have a case if the basement-dwelling Linux market was more than a statistical anomaly.
?? Are you on crack?
I'm just wondering if there are any traditional control freak agencies that would welcome such an endorsement?
The theory being they could access all the specs giving them more faith in the system itself.
Maybe the FSF needs to find a congresscritter who is scared of pre-hacked computers/servers/routers/switches with components made in China.
I guess I'm having a hard time to see where the boundary would lie, because of how easy it is to cross it. The Arduino, a general purpose microcontroller board, would seem to be about as open as they get: the whole firmware is open, the tools are open, they even give you files that would let you manipulate the hardware layout and have a factory produce your custom flavor. Does that get the Arduino a nod from the FSF? Okay, if so, what about Arduino-based devices which employ sensors and/or obfuscation on top of this great "free" platform? A locked-down spy device built upon open standards is possible on the web, on the desktop, and in your pocket. So the endorsement only goes for devices unmodified after inspection... which somewhat deflates any value in such an endorsement, in my mind.
[
So you actually think any major hardware manufacturer gives a shit about an F$F endorsement? Seriously?!?
It's satire. You know, the way companies kowtow to other companies with big money, now the FSF wants to play in that league and assert influence with ... what exactly? It's also sort of a dig at the asine way people tend to spell "Microsoft" around these parts.
Godspeed FSF, but even after dropping the various loaded language sprinkled throughout the document and the vague and onerous provisions ("Cannot be confused with a similar product" -- hey geniuses, that's what the logo is for, so you can look for it in a product lineup) this project is going nowhere.
OK, so apparently the idea behind the "Works with Windows" and "Made for Mac," and similar being incompatible is that a user might think that the hardware requires these pieces of proprietary software. However, wouldn't the FSF's endorsement itself be sufficient clarification that this isn't the case? This seems more a matter of ego-stroking, much in the same way that they insist on the "GNU/Linux" name as another condition of endorsement when there is, in all likelihood, precisely one person on the planet who cares about the difference.
I'd admonish the FSF that injecting petty politics into what should be a technology-based endorsement doesn't do anybody any favors, but frankly, I'm not sure I have to. These two requirements alone will ensure that nobody ever applies for this thing.
You're aware Duke Nukem Forever is now coming out, right?
Exactly. No OEM is gong to chase this endorsement, and even if they do get it, they won't be putting in on their retail packaging.
If my "ramblings" are so sad and no sane individual would care about them, why do you get so enraged and bothered by them to make a post whining about it?
Welcome to slashdot, where all honest effors to make the world a better place are automatically poo-pooed by those looking for attention. "Look at me! I'm different!"
You're a sad, sad troll :(
By that logic, there is absolutely nothing one can claim as one's own product, right? Even bodily fluids have influences from other organisms, from other people (in response to pheromones), and of course there are your parents and all your ancestors to thank, as well as all of evolution before you.
Not that I'm criticizing what you're saying per se... just being clear that what you're really talking about here, if taken to its logical conclusion, is pure Communism. Right?
;-;
I'm enraged? Well how about that, and here I thought I was just running down the clock on a Friday afternoon.
I know people have trouble accepting it, but I want to offer once again the philosophical principle that true freedom implies the right and ability to commit yourself and to constrain your future actions. This principle should be very acceptable to the FSF, because it is the basis for their argument that the GPL is more free than BSD style licenses. Superficially, the BSD is more free, because it let's you do whatever you want. But the FSF argues that the GPL is actually freer, because it let's you do whatever you want only as long as you let others do whatever they want with the result. Imposing this limitation on freedom, paradoxically, increases freedom.
And really, this should not seem paradoxical, because we see the same principle all the time in everyday life. Every time someone signs a contract, he commits to performing certain actions and thereby limits his own freedom. The same thing happens when two lovers promise to be faithful. The point is that the essence of true freedom requires the ability to voluntarily limit your own freedom.
This is where the FSF, along with much of the network community, has gotten off on the wrong foot with some of these hardware technologies, in particular Trusted Computing. These technologies allow you to make credible commitments to limit your own freedom. You can promise to run only certain software to handle certain data, and failure to honor your promise can be detected.
It should be clear that, as with contract, marriage, and other areas where we make binding commitments, as long as these kinds of promises are voluntary, allowing them actually enhances freedom. Yet the FSf doesn't see it that way. They are so angry and upset at the notion that people may make promises only to run certain code that they are doing all they can to make such promises impossible to make credibly.
I can understand the concerns that these technologies could be made mandatory. That would obviously be an unacceptable infringement on freedom. But we don't eliminate marriage just because some people are unfairly forced into marriage in certain cultures. We don't eliminate contract just because some are coercive. We fight the unjust arrangements while recognizing the value of a system which allows people to make binding commitments.
The same approach should be applied to Trusted Computing. We should support voluntary adoption of the technology, while vigorously opposing efforts to make it mandatory.
Unfortunately I don't see much prospect of the FSF changing its position on this issue; Stallman is not notoriously amenable to reasonable persuasion. But I hope the larger community can start to look at these matters with open eyes, and not feel obligated to follow the FSF in lockstep.
Then stop feeding him! You have a 5 digit ID, you should know better!
Actor 1 "Hey guys, this is my opinion"
Actor 2 "Here's a brief summary of why you are wrong."
Actor 1 "I can't take rejection. You have no life"
Actor 3 *insert actual comment of rejection*
*new topic* *repeat*
If it "Works with Windows", is "Made for Macs", and is "FSF Compatible" no sane manufacturer is not going to want to mention all three.
Disagree. Device manufacturers look at the cost (time and money) of the process required to license the logo/badge and decide that way. If the FSF have a sensible cost and process, then a little more testing to attract a growing segment is worth it.
The FSF is 100% wrong if they attempt to exclude Microsoft and Apple compatibility logos. Hardware can be simultaneously GPL friendly and proprietary at the same time. Look at HP printers as an example. Binary blobless source code for the operating system part of their devices is available in Linux. They have traditional IP restricted binaries for Apple and Microsoft.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
No really, that's one of the requirements: you have to refer to it as "GNU/Linux", not just Linux. You also have to emphasize "Free Software" over "Open Source". Go read the doc, it's really in there
The MacArthur Foundation ought to take back the Genius Grant they gave RMS.
chip to check for digital signatures to prove the code is "authorized"
Which is exactly what Tivo did with their Linux stack. Modify the Linux stack in a Tivo and the device is broken due to some kind of hashing.
I think the FSF is on the right track, but the inexorable problems of clever people circumventing the GPL will turn a good idea into an unpleasant situation.
If the FSF made the essence of the label basically GPL friendly hardware with no binary software blobs with some limited backward kernel version support, then I think they'd have a winner. BSD could potentially leverage off the FSF work of making sure the device is open enough to write drivers. A better revenue opportunity for the FSF would be if they did the testing so the hardware manufacturers don't have to acquire the people to do meet the FSF label requirements.
Where the FSF might get into trouble is attempting to shut out Apple and Microsoft. Just ignore them. The more Microsoft and Apple restrain/monetize personal use, the more Free software will be in use. It's the only way forward.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
his whole present bit is the direct result of manufacturers failing to implement things to the appropriate standard.
Provided that there exists such a standard. A lot of USB device classes aren't specified enough to allow for a generic class driver, such as bitmap printers (printer device class 1.1 doesn't define a baseline printer control protocol and page description language), flatbed scanners, storage devices that aren't the sort of block devices envisioned by the Mass Storage Class (such as EPROM programmers), and adapters to connect legacy devices (such as RS232 serial ports). And I don't see how a standard for low-level interfaces to video cards can keep up with the changing state of GPUs, apart from unaccelerated VESA.
Hardware mfgs won't go for this
Consumers won't care
There aren't enough people who _do_ care to make a difference
Some of this may be true, stark reality. But if that's the case, then I ask, what do we do instead?
A lot of us feel strongly that the rise of constrained, "walled garden" computing, especially in mobile devices (phones, iPad, etc.) is a Bad Thing(tm). These mobile devices, along with increasingly complex embedded systems, may well be the future of computing. These days, computing = access to information. Do you really, really want your information device to be nothing more than a puppet for someone else to control? We've all read the books and seen the movies - we know where this road ends. I don't want to go there.
Already, the corporate-owned and operated consolidated media is doing its best to spoon-feed everybody the daily ration of irrelevant crap or pre-digested "here's what to think" news stories. And due to the trend we're discussing, soon the only place we'll be able to get any information at all is with our fully-controlled, censored, happy happy joy joy goodcitizendevices.
But this gets worse, because once the corporations control everything, it's only one small step away from government abuse. Been paying attention to the trends lately? Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-law enforcement, but there must be balance. When all tech is locked down and we have no choices, it will be too late to wonder if we should have just allowed it to happen.
So, honestly, if this FSF effort isn't the answer, what is? Because as long as we want to remain a free people, we can't just stand by and watch, if not facilitate, as a select few take full control of the systems we rely on for our information.
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer, my spouse, my children, or my cats.
You're saying "lock down is good and users love it!" when I'm saying that "users aren't aware of what lock down is."
For the sake of civility, let me try to combine your arguments: Users are unaware that it's called lockdown, but they love the end results that are achieved with lockdown as one of the steps.
Android phones are, by and large, exactly as locked-down as iOS devices.
Google doesn't charge you $599 for a special computer plus $99 per year for a developer agreement to use "Unknown sources" on most Android phones.
I had to jailbreak (or whatever the term is) my HTC Aria before I could remove ATT's built-in apps, for example.
That's the fault of AT&T, not the fault of Google. AT&T, unlike the other three major United States mobile phone carriers, removes the "Unknown sources" option from its subsidized handsets.
Whoops. In other words this thing is still-born because only a subset of OpenCores projects could possibly ever qualify?
Good luck with that.
worst case scenario - there is no change and status quo remains
No, the worst case scenario is that locked-down appliances will displace computers in the home market. They've already done so for set-top video gaming (until the NES came out, it was common to connect an 8-bit home computer to a TV), and iPad looks like Apple's attempt to do the same to netbooks.
Yeah, because only getting 10+ years of support for a version of Windows is so unreasonable. I mean, I can still get patches and backports of all my apps and kernel changes to a 10 year old version of Debian, right?
The difference is that one can upgrade from one version of Debian to the next without paying another $100-200 to an operating system publisher. So the support period for those versions covered under a single purchase is comparable: a single Windows OS and its service packs for 10+ years, or several versions of Debian for 10+ years.
Nokia N900
Is not sold in stores in my part of the United States. Without a floor model that I can pick up and play with, and without a critical mass of people who have mail-ordered the device such that I'm likely to know someone who uses one, I don't know whether the screen and input are to my liking.
a whole bunch of Android devices
Why is it that the ones sold in the United States without a cell phone plan don't have the Market?
OpenPandora
Same problem as N900, plus they still can't make enough to meet demand.
Is it fear mongering when an entire market, particularly the mobile market, is moving in that direction?
Moving in what direction? BREW is more locked down than Android, and well-known handheld game consoles are even more locked down than BREW.
The "right to make money"/socialism for business is at the center of the corrupt economic regime that dominates Wall St. It is standard practice to commit fraud because being profitable trumps the rule of law. The latest "robosigning" scandal is a classic example of how things really work. If you signed a fraudulent affidavit as part of a real estate transaction then you would go to jail. When Bank of America does it to save money then it is a "paperwork error". There is one law for big corporate American and another law for individuals. That means there is in effect no rule of law at all. And it goes back to people like you who think that making profit is a right. You are pro-corruption. It is this attitude and it's real world effect that are destroying the US and world economy.
Why is Snark Required?
Again, you're talking about developers. Not users. Developers for the most part are not users; users for the most part are not developers.
But in order to load an application that Apple hasn't approved on the App Store onto the iPod touch, a user needs to become a developer.
There's no practical difference between "your phone is locked-down because the maker locks it down" (Apple) and "your phone is locked-down because the carrier locks it down" (Android). No difference whatsoever.
In the latter case, there is competition. I can buy an unbranded phone and plug in a SIM card sold separately (at a discount if I use T-Mobile), or I can buy a phone from a different carrier that doesn't lock it down (again T-Mobile), and it'll still run the same apps from the same Market. But if I want to run apps for the iPhone and iPod touch, on the other hand, all units are equally locked down.
Ok, and then they are no longer a user.
It appears we're running straight into Layne's Law of Debate over the definitions of "user" and "developer".
I don't see how your sentence there refutes my point at all.
The advantage of Android is that you don't need to become a developer just to install another developer's self-published software.
And I can choose between a Nintendo Wii, Sony PS3, and Microsoft Xbox 360 for my video gaming needs, but they're still all locked-down.
There is a fourth console: connect your PC to your TV. You'll need a few cables, some USB gamepads, maybe a hub, and some TV-friendly games.
starting with VESA 3.0, blit 2D acceleration is included in the standart.
and incomplete published standard is not a good enough reason to create some proprietary extension.
probleme : no standard USB protocol
wrong solution : design your own
correct solution: try designing a new standard - like UVC.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
No, they are quite clear its about freedom of the *users*, not everyone.
You do realize how utterly incompressible that statement is to anyone who doesn't read Slashdot?
most probable scenario - the no-name asian manufacturer will happily slap this as an additionnal bullet point in a long list of features (written in engrish) they provide to try to be competitive.
you know, the same kind of brands which are happy to slap ogg/vorbis to their multimedia boxes because it's free, makes one more entry on the bullet list, and their not member of any "Play for Sure" campaign or anything else which forbids them to do it.
You're the one who basically stated users have to turn *into* developers before they care about iOS lockdowns.
In that case, it appears the conflict is between Apple's definition of "developer" (one who has joined the iPhone Developer Program) and the ordinary definition (author of a computer program). A user needs to become what I'll call a big-D Developer (that is, join the iPhone Developer Program) to run apps not from the App Store, but then the user is still not a small-d developer in the ordinary sense because he isn't creating his own computer programs. Substituting both of these definitions into your previous comment gives two different statements:
Which did you mean?
No one that matters cares about this. By which I mean almost all consumers could care less if a product is endorsed by the FSF - the vast majority will have never heard of them.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
I'm all for free/open source software. The majority of society (even college educated people) don't see the value in it though. When a company reaches into their hardware and removes functionality or content, they complain for five minutes. Then they move on, forgetting the whole thing ever happened and they continue to fund the companies in question. It doesn't matter if you have open hardware available that treats the user with respect. If 99% of society is too stupid to stand up for their rights to own the things they buy, you've already lost.
I only wonder how long it will be before they can remotely reach into my BIOS and disable my accelerated graphics card... for security reasons OF COURSE!
What do you expect from a group founded by RM$?
That section said there was no problem with giving facts (such as listing which operating systems the hardware was tested/designed for), but the problem was the use of the logos that would promote the proprietary.
Still, I'm not sure that curing the general problem of endorsement with endorsements is a great idea. (Then again, the GPL uses the features of copyright law, so I'll have to read this and think about it.)
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
The first version of the GPL kind of went nowhere.
Getting some kind of gentleman's agreement in place for hardware, where you can really use the hardware you've bought, is taking a bit longer than the mucking with the copyright law we call the GPL, and even the GPL is going to need tuning again after the next round of legal semantic shifting.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Or use your brain to read it.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
One, they are still taking feedback (as the article says), two, compatibilities are allowed to be listed as facts.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
User?
Manufacturer?
Purchaser?
(erm, government?)
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
It should fade away quietly while people still think highly of the wackjob membership.
BAG should fade away quietly while people still think of the laugh-inducing analogies he used to post.
Seriously, dude, you've been fucking boring me of late. Take it up a notch.
You're aware Duke Nukem Forever is now coming out, right?
I've heard that before.
MIPS and ARM CPUs will be the basis of machines which are most likely to be endorsed, simply because of the sheer overwhelming level of integration on ARM CPUs and the dramatic simplicity and lower cost of MIPS CPUs.
To design an x86-based system is insanity: it requires a BIOS for a start (whereas ARM and MIPS systems typically use u-boot, which is GPL licensed) and the BIOS for x86 systems, for backwards-compatibility reasons, is usually proprietary, which INSTANTLY kicks any x86-based system into touch on the FSF endorsement process.
So the issue is actually very simple: you simply don't get windows-compatible systems on the list!
Plus, the moment the system is x86 compatible, you have entered a raging cut-throat market where it is actually incredibly foolish to contemplate entering.
So, actually, manufacturers are desperately looking around for alternatives in order to bolster profit margins; that means ARM and MIPS highly-integrated or low-cost CPUs; that means zero windows OS; that means that _actually_ this whole idea has a much higher chance of success than might at first glance appear to be the case.
i'm posting again, the exact same thing, because the comments "this will be a failure" seem to be being given very high priority.
ARM CPUs and MIPS CPUs are the most likely CPUs around which hardware platforms will emerge, and it is SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE to run windows on ARM CPUs.
thus the entire counterargument against the FSF endorsement concept is utterly irrelevant.
the x86 market is so cut-throat and saturated that any manufacturer wishing to create an exciting new product with a higher profit margin simply cannot use an x86 CPU, and that's the end of it.
there are a couple of embedded x86 CPUs - from RDC and XCore86 but they are so far behind (1ghz) that they really do not have enough going for them, *ESPECIALLY* when they are only capable of running Windows XP because the CPUs simply don't have the instruction set compatibility to run Windows 7.
all in all everything points towards the massively-integrated ARM Cortex A8, A9 and upcoming A15 CPUs and towards the ultra-low-cost highly simplistic MIPS CPUs.
so there's utterly different market, utterly different architectures, different hardware, different rules... and different opportunities.
I just bought an ASUS PCI WiFi card that supports Linux and mentions it on the box. It also mentions it supports Windows and some other OS. None of these are official logos, but they all look fine and conveyed the proper information. As long as it works as advertised, who's going to care if the logo is the official one or not?
A Roku box or an Xbox 360 game console handily beats a home theater PC in price.
Does it replace the $279 netbook for filling taxes and typing up homework?
The pattern I've seen in homes is that people buy one box for gaming and/or media playback, which sits next to the TV, and another box for "filling taxes and typing up homework", which sits in another room connected to a 17" monitor. They don't think of buying an ION nettop as the gaming and media box because only a token selection of major-label video games designed for PCs running Windows are optimized for play on TV.
C. Having a game good enough that people will pick a bunch of cheap USB gamepads.
Developing a compelling HTPC game to drive purchases of HTPCs and the connection of gaming laptops to HDTVs was my business plan before some other Slashdot users talked me out of it. See this comment by CronoCloud and this comment by Altrag.
Would you do the same with your light gun controlled game document.
No, because a light gun game can be easily adapted to Wii or Move. (See also Wii Play.) Unlike the lack of high-definition CRTs, the restriction against indie games on Wii and PS3 is not technical but purely an arbitrary business decision. Whether a design document gets implemented on a video game console is determined by the size of the company backing the design document, not by the technical merits of the design document itself. Technical restrictions demand technical workarounds, and social restrictions demand social workarounds.
Or, to reverse the roles, about the lack of a keyboard and mouse if you had the greatest hardcore FPS design even and only had access to a gamepad controlled console?
Rare did, and Goldeneye 007 sold eight million copies.
Current desktop/gaming laptop monitors are plenty big and hi-res.
Big enough for four?
Only require a gamepad for two-player multiplayer and you just might get somewhere.
Keyboard support was part of my plan all along. It's just that keyboard sharing is more likely to produce boop ... boop ... boop when both players hold down keys due to limited capacity on common PC keyboards' encoders. Players would start with the same keyboard that they currently use with SWF games and add gamepads when they want to expand play. But expanding past two might run into the monitor size issue.
In the end it's all about working around the limitations (arbitrary or not) that are in place.
Then do you recommend that all indie multiplayer video games either A. be one-switch games or B. require an expensive $2,400 network-of-PCs? I hope not; it makes computers look bad in the perennial PC vs. console flamewar.