Why FSF Endorsing PureOS Matters

https://puri.sm/posts/why-fsf-endorsing-pureos-matters/

by fsflover • 6 years ago

161 129 6 years ago

pjmlp6• 6 years ago

Well, I ended up reading the post about gaming as well.

https://puri.sm/posts/gaming-that-respects-you/

The Librem 5 features high quality, free games that respect you. Play 2D and 3D games without ads, without in-app purchases, and without tracking.

Don't expect much uptake from game studios, when the selling point of the platform is not to pay for games.

Bancakes2• 6 years ago

I love how serious they are with Tux Kart. That was the prime example they could cherrypick.

FeepingCreature• 6 years ago

I've semi-recently gotten into Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead. I think a lot of roguelikes are opensource.

Being opensource and easy to extend gives it an enormous developer base.

anthk2• 6 years ago

SupertuxKart today is hugely improved graphically, on par on WiiU graphics (not bad for a childish racer), and with netplay support.

Also, Minetest with the Dreamworld MOD lacks nothing from Minecraft.

DC-32• 6 years ago

I'm a libre software advocate but I see little reason why games should be libre. They're not tools - you don't use them to create things or to do your job. They're more akin to movies - compiled and packaged 'experiences' that are by design read-only. When you buy a DVD, you don't expect hundreds of hours of unedited footage to come along with the film so you can cut together your own version. The same is true of games.

jcelerier4• 6 years ago

When you buy a DVD, you don't expect hundreds of hours of unedited footage to come along with the film so you can cut together your own version.

instead of accepting this as a fact of life, it should definitely be discussed and debated. What are good reasons for not having this right by default ?

For instance, Star Wars fans have made the despecialized edition from footage from the various movie - the result is pretty good. People remix music all the time; there have been plenty of initiatives over the years to provide songs as separated tracks to allow for more advanced remixes. etc etc...

tpxl4• 6 years ago

Source available games (don't even need to be "Open Source" or "Free and Open Source") benefit greatly from modding, keeping games alive much longer and making them better even in the very short run.

I dabble in game design and the plan is making the game code open/libre (not the assets or trademarks though) after some time passes (years or maybe even decades, depending on the success) so others can learn from it, extend it and maybe even sell it is quite a draw for me.

morlockabove3• 6 years ago

Nethack, DCSS, Cataclysm: dark days ahead and co. show that FOSS games can do very well.

badsectoracula2• 6 years ago

Look at Doom, Quake, etc for the benefits: fixing bugs, keeping the game playable in new drivers/systems/OSes, making better mods, etc.

The game content doesn't need to be libre, but the game engine benefits from it.

bzzzt• 6 years ago

The days games where complete packaged single player experiences are long gone (unless you're Nintendo). Games are tools: kids see each other in a game of Fortnite and visit concerts together. That makes Fortnite a communication/messenger tool and a browser too. Same for other community-based stuff like Roblox or Minecraft.

ragnese• 6 years ago

Except that games are executing code on your general purpose computer. They are also connected to the internet these days.

When I buy a DVD, I can view it with my own software or on a dedicated device that is not a general purpose computer or connected to the internet.

I suspect that most people who try to carve out an exception for games are just rationalizing. They prefer free software, but don't want to give up their games. Then they often poo-poo someone for not wanting to give up $OtherPropreitaryApp.

andrepd• 6 years ago

I see what you mean, but the existence of thriving mod communities proves otherwise. People do want to fiddle with games and make their own derivative works.

Also, concerns about tracking and privacy.

setr• 6 years ago

Video games can largely be described as simulations, and ways to interact with it. This applies to both extensive simulations like dwarf fortress, to incredibly simple simulations like mega man. Combined with the fact they’re software, and thus generally available to be shared and modified without cost, they’re uniquely qualified to be a communal artistic medium — one in which others can modify, enhance, and extend the simulation capabilities.

There’s a reason games have (popular) modding cultures, where other mediums do not, and that same reason is why it is viable/reasonable for games to be libre.

That most games are treated and developed like movies, rather than like simulations, is a result of a fundamental misunderstanding by the game designers/developers.

UweSchmidt• 6 years ago

I like that they have a vision for the ecosystem they are building, which includes gaming. If I understand correctly up-front payments for games should be possible? "Not paying for games" does not seem to be a selling point for PureOS.

nfoz• 6 years ago

You have ads in your games?

I pay tons of money on games, on many platforms. But ads/tracking/in-app purchases? That sounds like an awful mess.

kobalsky• 6 years ago

Well, bad news, you are a minority. Phones have changed (destroyed) the landscape.

Did you know that King with their Candy Crush and other saga games almost double the operating income of Blizzard with all their legendary lineup? [1].

1. https://www.investopedia.com/how-activision-blizzard-makes-m...

duxup• 6 years ago

without in-app purchases

Is that so bad?

There are certainly a lot of loot box patterns that are unseemly, but I'm not sure I understand a wholesale prohibition of in-app purchases entirely.

simonh2• 6 years ago

I won't touch pay to win crap like loot boxes and coins, but IAP for additional content like maps and levels and such is absolutely fine.

addicted2• 6 years ago

without ads, without in-app purchases, and without tracking

I don't see where they are discouraging paying for games?

I do see them discouraging insidious tracking, advertisements masquerading as gameplay, and lottery systems designed to enrich the game developer at the expense of the actual gamer.

zlsa• 6 years ago

From the previous sentence:

The Librem 5 features high quality, free games that respect you.

ASalazarMX• 6 years ago

I think it's the "free games" part. I think they mean free as in freedom, but is it also free as in beer too?

"Free" is such an unfortunate word, because in other languages it only means "gratis". "Libre", as in LibreOffice, is better.

mdoms• 6 years ago

I agree, when you take a few words completely out of their original context then the statement makes no sense.

quadrifoliate• 6 years ago

I think that since they are discussing the FSF, they just mean that the source of the games will be freely available and redistributable to people who are paying for the software. I don't think this is materially different from models like Humble Bundle, which feature vastly discounted prices for games.

Addendum: People looking at "free" and thinking "you don't have to pay for them!" makes me feel both old and pessimistic.

Is the "free as in speech, not as in beer" thing just a byline at this point? I remember reading about it and being pretty excited by the concept ~15 years ago, and it seems that it was pretty common in the software industry to understand the distinction; especially in the context of the FSF.

craftyguy• 6 years ago

They mean 'free' as in freedom, not 'free' as in beer. There's a (huge) difference.

Galanwe3• 6 years ago

The article really mixes up "being free" and "having FSF validation".

While having FSF validation is indeed some kind of proof of due diligence, in the end what really matters is the trust that users place in the project itself in following their guidelines.

I do not have a particularly strong trust for the (modern) FSF, so their validation adds nothing, IMHO, in my trust in Purism.

holri3• 6 years ago

Why do you have no strong trust in modern FSF?

Galanwe3• 6 years ago

It's hard to answer this without potentially starting a flame war. I can see that some comments start to explode already. Still, let me try to explain my mistrust constructively.

Let me just start by saying that trust is a very personal feeling. We give trust to others based on criteria that are different. I completely understand that my points listed below are not relevant trust indicators for others.

That being said, I have 2 main mistrust issues with FSF:

1) Leadership

I had various occasions to interact with RSM over the years, in various contexts. I do not have a fond memory of those interactions.

- I remember someone which is very difficult to have a real conversation with. Very childish and binary in his view of the world. Prompt to not listen to arguments, talking louder than others, turning arguments into jokes, etc.

- I worked and know plenty of people who worked with him in various academic labs where he's been invited to give talks or work on subjects. The same complaints emerged all the time: he would grossly hit on female PhD students (just enough to make them uncomfortable), always tried to be hosted by someone and would not even shower there, very rarely participate in the big picture of why he was invited (e.g. He would lock himself in a room for 2 days straight to fix some esoteric emacs bug on an archaic platform, instead of just organizing seminars on free software and participate in discussions), he would act in very narcissistic ways (e.g. After proposing to go to a restaurant, he would then propose - and insist grossly - to pay the bill with his autograph on a printed copy of emacs source code). He would constantly rant on closed source computers and cell phones, but will gladly borrow anyone's phone to make international calls. I stop here because I just have too much random echos of his not-so-pleasant behavior.

Overall most of my personal interactions with RSM, as well as friend's recollections picture him as gross, childish, and narcissistic.

Now RSM himself is not the FSF as a whole, but I have a hard time trusting an organization that is so centered around a single individual which embodies traits that I do not appreciate.

2) The organization members

I did not have direct relation with other FSF members, but I have been contributor to projects where the FSF intervened (or tried to) in the governance.

Most of the time, the FSF members were never contributors to the projects. Yet they were the one trying to dictate the tone and direction, and act like they owned the projects based on their moral high ground.

This has led me to associate FSF members as some kind of a self proclaimed elite class of zealots, exempt of technical knowledge and actual contributions, but still willing to be heard.

This goes directly against my view of governance of open source projects, in which I believe the actual contributors should be ones to set the tone and direction of the project, because they are the one building it.

---

Again, all this is mainly personal feelings, so I don't want to look like I'm trying to influence others into distrusting FSF.

I understand that my interactions with RSM were in a certain context and that he maybe could be a very pleasant person in a different situation. And I also understand that my interactions with other FSF members were limited to the projects I contributed to, and there may be thousands of others where they were helping and constructive.

wizzwizz45• 6 years ago

Has the FSF validation process changed recently?

amosbatto4• 6 years ago

I have no idea whether the internal process at the FSF changed or not, but the rules are the same for the FSF endorsing a distro and giving its Respects Your Freedom certification to a piece of hardware.

This page has stayed the same: https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria

However, I raised a question about how to interpret the RYF criteria with regard to proprietary firmware updates, and I'm hoping the FSF will clarify the RFY criteria in a way that allows proprietary firmware updates for components that don't execute on the main CPU cores. See: https://forums.puri.sm/t/does-respects-your-freedom-certific...

Brian_K_White2• 6 years ago

I always forget which are the actual free software guys and which are the businesses that use linux guys... I think FSF are still the good ones right?

Though that thing about the FSFE office in Germany yesterday... Hopefully it's just a dude and the office he runs rather than the organization as a whole.

mattl• 6 years ago

FSFE is a legally distinct entity from the FSF.

hjek• 6 years ago

Though that thing about the FSFE office in Germany yesterday.

What are you referring to?

vclp• 6 years ago

It is better to keep unrelated issues separate. The alleged FSFE issue you mention has little to do with trusting the FSF to accurately evaluate a free software stack.

If anything, slightly grumpy old school guys (again, alleged) are much better at rejecting corporate influence than the new people whose politics are literally bankrolled by corporations.

marcan_423• 6 years ago

In fact, having FSF validation doesn't prove anything but rather may be detrimental, because the FSF validation has built-in backdoors, and Purism took full advantage of them - reducing user freedom in the process.

Thread on how the Librem 5 is explicitly designed to hide proprietary blobs from the user in order to gain RYF certification (where having those blobs readily accessible would be strictly an improvement in freedom, as it would mean you are free to verify their contents, audit them, and potentially replace them with a free version if you develop one):

https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1040626210999431168

Make no mistake, Purism has gone quite far down the freedom marketing religion path laid down by the FSF. They no longer care whether you're free or not, they care that you believe you're free.

If you have blobs, stick them in /lib/firmware. Don't go hiding them in separate flash chips that I can't audit or rewrite just so you can slap the FSF's meaningless "the main CPU didn't touch any blobs (except the bootrom but we don't talk about that) so it doesn't have the digital cooties" rubber stamp on your device.

fsflover10• 6 years ago

This thread is just wrong. You can modify the blobs if you need to: https://forums.puri.sm/t/does-respects-your-freedom-certific....

holri3• 6 years ago

You are wrong, from https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria :

"We want users to be able to upgrade and control the software at as many levels as possible. If and when free software becomes available for use on a certain secondary processor, we will expect certified products to adopt it within a reasonable period of time. This can be done in the next model of the product, if there is a new model within a reasonable period of time. If this is not done, we will eventually withdraw the certification."

lmm• 6 years ago

I'd say the FSF has a better reputation than most organisations in this space, and certainly a more established one than Purism does. Here in this thread there are a lot of people criticising them for being "too dogmatic" or for applying their rules too inflexibly, which IMO is proof that they take a firmly principled stance - which is exactly what's needed to validate something like this. A group that's willing to bend would soon end up being meaningless.

7e• 6 years ago

Which one of the FSF’s dozen employees made this endorsement?

fsflover10• 6 years ago

https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html

moocowtruck• 6 years ago

these people are crooks why would FSF endorse them?

SiebenHeaven• 6 years ago

Why do you say that? (genuine question)

vinceguidry• 6 years ago

I have a Purism Librem 13. It's sitting on a shelf somewhere because the battery won't charge anymore, the barrel connector is too loose. Purism tech support was no help at all. Another minor issue, the screws weren't held in by any kind of loctite and they just fall out after awhile if I don't remember to periodically tighten them. Like 4 of those screws are missing. And the rubber feet just had the worst adhesive on them, so they're gone.

Until the thing just plain stopped working on me all of a sudden, it was great.

LMYahooTFY2• 6 years ago

I wouldn't say that it doesn't matter. I think that propagating the values of free software is important, so I'm certainly supportive to a large degree.

But I think HN is the place to discuss nuances such as these:

Firstly, it's very unclear to me how Purism and the FSF reconcile the FSF criteria regarding 'Nonfree Firmware' with the blobs on the device. It's also unclear to me what the distinction is between this part of the criteria and the RYF certification.

https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria

Furthermore, the FSF's criteria regarding non-free firmware seems problematic, and it directly affects the Librem. Purism has been working with the FSF in pursuit of the RYF certification, and all of the responses I've found seem to be somewhat evasive of the fact that it may be the Librem will not get firmware updates, and that this is in accordance with RYF criteria.

https://forums.puri.sm/t/does-respects-your-freedom-certific...

The response from the CSO almost confirms this.

I find a lack of firmware updates to be possibly more of a concern than whether or not only my application CPU is running only free software.

What the FSF and company define as 'software' also still seems to be problematic.

fsflover10• 6 years ago

I find a lack of firmware updates to be possibly more of a concern

Why are you suggesting that one can't change the firmware? In your link, Purism CSO explicitly said you would be able to do it:

I would expect that we would document the process in our Librem 5 developer docs at some point, when it’s relevant (such as when there’s an update to apply).

LMYahooTFY2• 6 years ago

The CSO explicitly said they "expect" you can, and "at some point" it will be documented.

They have yet to explicitly state in any way that they will ensure firmware receives security updates.

rando8323• 6 years ago

It's also unclear to me what the distinction is between this part of the criteria and the RYF certification.

Ya, you are confused.

The PureOS endorsement is about a distro you can download and put on a computer (the distro doesn't include a bios or related firmware).

RYF is about all the software that comes on a computer/device, and the website you use to buy it, it's much more expansive.

So, Purism's computers are not RYF certified, but they come with a distro that is fully free (the disto does not include some nonfree firmware that comes on Purism's computers).

2OEH8eoCRo04• 6 years ago

The FSF is too dogmatic.

I love this page: https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html

"Debian's Social Contract states the goal of making Debian entirely free software, and Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree software out of the official Debian system. However, Debian also maintains a repository of nonfree software."

So shipping free software isn't even enough for admission to the FSFs special club. Right. I've stopped listening to anything Stallman says.

tomcam3• 6 years ago

Only Stallman can define freedom, prole. No wonder you’re not in the club.

jabl• 6 years ago

The FSF is too dogmatic.

In other news, water is wet.

More seriously, yeah there's a place for ideological organizations that broadcast their philosophy and won't budge when moneyed interests try to push them around. But such organizations also tend to be difficult to work with if you just want to get stuff done.

blitblitblit• 6 years ago

And in still other ways this endorsement is hypocritical to their own dogma: https://web.archive.org/web/20161010040458/https://blogs.cor...

cogburnd02• 6 years ago

The FSF is too dogmatic.

I disagree. They have a moral value system, and they adhere to it. Just like (say) Roman Catholicism.

The FSF's point of view is that by providing repositories (which make installing a program a single command-line or a few GUI-clicks away) that's not functionally different from that being a part of the operating system. So providing repositories of nonfree software is functionally equivalent to including that software in the OS itself.

And to have software freedom, then all the software on a machine must respect the user's freedom; i.e. be free software.

rando8323• 6 years ago

Your quote is misleading. There are a list of reasons on that page, you imply it's just that one reason.

So shipping free software isn't even enough for admission to the FSFs special club.

If you're free is designed to "lead others to make use of" nonfree software, then of course not: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

2OEH8eoCRo04• 6 years ago

Not misleading. You can ship entirely free software and that's not enough.

Why FSF Endorsing PureOS Matters

Related Stories