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."
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.
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
I believe that the concept is that hardware can be made to prevent free software from loading, for instance, a chip to check for digital signatures to prove the code is "authorized", and that therefor the non-libre hardware can prevent you from running the software you want, forcing you to have to use software that isn't libre.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?