3 ms·

This is silly. The free-software folks doesn't want phones to be like Android; they want them to be like Debian (or gNewSense or whatever). That is, where user

This is silly. The free-software folks doesn't want phones to be like Android; they want them to be like Debian (or gNewSense or whatever). That is, where users have a choice of a curated package repository maintained by middlemen who have the users' interests at heart. And where packages and the changes to those packages have an audit trail. The Google Play store is a disaster from the GNU perspective -- zillions of nearly-identical closed-source programs, most of them pretty lousy, no curation by a trusted third party, no access to source anyway (so not so easy to curate even if you wanted to), no ability to fetch an old version or see what has changed, no way to "take over" an abandoned package and bring it up to date or improve it, no way for a distributor to make programs play nicely together, and no way for a distributor to modify programs to make them less privacy-invasive or battery-intensive or whatever users might want.

zanny 13y ago
They don't even want Debian, since it has optional binary blobs and hosted repositories of commercial software. FSF isn't complciated - don't give your users anything without including the source. And don't restrict the users ability to modify and run said software however they want.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  The FSF refuses to "approve" something just because they point out nonfree software that you can use. Fedora fails for this reason - it's 100% free software with some firmware blobs kept aside that are, yknow, necessary to make some hardware work. It's dogmatic to the point of absurdity. A piece of software is free software because of what it is, not because of what its makers suggest/allow you install on it.
  - mattl 13y ago
    > A piece of software is free software because of what it is, not because of what its makers suggest/allow you install on it. And so, if its a binary with a license that prohibits redistribution, modification, ships without source, or is just a series of hex values in a struct, I don't see how its free software?
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      Free-ness is a property of the code (specifically its license), not the actions of its authors or the other code that comes with it.
  - tedks 13y ago
    They refuse to endorse organizations that do things contrary to their mission. That's entirely unsurprising.
  - zanny 13y ago
    Fedora, by providing blobs, promotes the usage of non-free software. If you want those blobs you should have to seek them out yourself, your provider should not saddle you with potential ignorance to you running software no one can audit. If your computer can't run without binary blobs, yet you are a free software proponent, you should not want to use that computer because the manufacturer is taking away your freedom to use the device you purchased how you want. Though that gets into the mess that is open EE technical documents on firmware, chipsets, mainboards, circuit layouts, etc - pretty much none of which exist, because so few companies offer them, it is nigh impossible to get an open platform. Which sucks, and is something I'd throw money at to see fixed.
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      >If you want those blobs you should have to seek them out yourself Untenable position. A user should not be forced to jump through hoops to make their hardware work just for what is essentially an ideological reason (and indeed, an average user would rightly reject such software.) >If your computer can't run without binary blobs, yet you are a free software proponent If the goal of the FSF is to make people care about the free-ness of their operating system, they could certainly go about it a better way. The problem with the whole "approval" thing is that the very name of the organization combined with that action is misleading. Example, if I ran a group called the Cool Software Foundation and maintain a list of cool software, and I made it a point to single out your $application as not being approved, that carries the connotation that your app is not cool. s/cool/free or any other objective adjective. In other words, the distro itself very much is free software, and the FSF by their dogmatism is being misleading. I'm with BSD on this one.

zanny 13y ago

They don't even want Debian, since it has optional binary blobs and hosted repositories of commercial software. FSF isn't complciated - don't give your users anything without including the source. And don't restrict the users ability to modify and run said software however they want.

Karunamon 13y ago
The FSF refuses to "approve" something just because they point out nonfree software that you can use. Fedora fails for this reason - it's 100% free software with some firmware blobs kept aside that are, yknow, necessary to make some hardware work. It's dogmatic to the point of absurdity. A piece of software is free software because of what it is, not because of what its makers suggest/allow you install on it.
- mattl 13y ago
  > A piece of software is free software because of what it is, not because of what its makers suggest/allow you install on it. And so, if its a binary with a license that prohibits redistribution, modification, ships without source, or is just a series of hex values in a struct, I don't see how its free software?
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    Free-ness is a property of the code (specifically its license), not the actions of its authors or the other code that comes with it.
- tedks 13y ago
  They refuse to endorse organizations that do things contrary to their mission. That's entirely unsurprising.
- zanny 13y ago
  Fedora, by providing blobs, promotes the usage of non-free software. If you want those blobs you should have to seek them out yourself, your provider should not saddle you with potential ignorance to you running software no one can audit. If your computer can't run without binary blobs, yet you are a free software proponent, you should not want to use that computer because the manufacturer is taking away your freedom to use the device you purchased how you want. Though that gets into the mess that is open EE technical documents on firmware, chipsets, mainboards, circuit layouts, etc - pretty much none of which exist, because so few companies offer them, it is nigh impossible to get an open platform. Which sucks, and is something I'd throw money at to see fixed.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    >If you want those blobs you should have to seek them out yourself Untenable position. A user should not be forced to jump through hoops to make their hardware work just for what is essentially an ideological reason (and indeed, an average user would rightly reject such software.) >If your computer can't run without binary blobs, yet you are a free software proponent If the goal of the FSF is to make people care about the free-ness of their operating system, they could certainly go about it a better way. The problem with the whole "approval" thing is that the very name of the organization combined with that action is misleading. Example, if I ran a group called the Cool Software Foundation and maintain a list of cool software, and I made it a point to single out your $application as not being approved, that carries the connotation that your app is not cool. s/cool/free or any other objective adjective. In other words, the distro itself very much is free software, and the FSF by their dogmatism is being misleading. I'm with BSD on this one.