[Gta04-owner] Me too

Michele Brocco ssj2micvm at gmail.com
Wed Oct 19 16:53:53 CEST 2011


I think the same. It does not make sense to hinder such projects going
towards a complete free solution such as the GTA04 project. Maybe
instead of thinking about a 0 or 1 world there should be something
like a FSF barometer that expresses the "freeness" degree of the
respective solution adopted. It is in the most cases unfeasible to
create a completely free project when it has to rely and is dependent
on many subprojects and -products such as in the GTA04 case. IMHO with
this  0 or 1 behavior it will be almost impossible to build free
complex systems in the future. On the other hand I am not sure if the
FSF already thought and discussed thoroughly about the concept of free
open hardware and if they are going to employ it officially. There are
also other institutions that probably focused more on this issue.

On 10/19/11, Frank <frank+gta04 at villaro-dixon.eu> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:15:11 +0200, David Lanzendörfer wrote:
>>> Hi
>> Hi
>>
> Hi
>
>>> I also had the chance to hear Richard Stallman today, and also brave
>>> leviathan, who asked him again about this firmware issue. But of
>>> course
>>> RMS has his principles, and as unreasonable as it looks from our
>>> view
>>> point, he will keep his line where he had drawn it.
>> Well. I say: "screw him"
>> It's a deep philosophical insight I earned after approximately 2.5
>> Liters of beer
>> (at the end (Found another beer in my laptop bag while waiting for
>> the bus))
>> after the talk with the guy.
>>
>> Who cares:
>> We have a device whose schematics are freely available.
>> The Kernel is GPL and we use GPL userspace.
>> We have transparent development and you can meet us personally
>> and we will even explain the schematics to someone interested.
>> Same goes for code.
>>
>> We have only one single piece of unfree firmware, which you aren't
>> forced to use
>> (you just won't be able to use WiFi if you don't)
>>
>> So I say: this way it's more free then the crappy way he suggest,
>> because this way you are even free to use unfree software.
>>
>> So screw him, we keep on doing what we are doing.
>> It would be paradox if everyone would depend on one single
>> organization
>> and it's antiquated pope uhh president for defining what's free or
>> unfree.
>>
>> This would drive the whole meaning of "freedom" itself ad absurdum.
>>
>> We have good intensions and if he doesn't like it screw him.
>> We are transparent, we are open, we even license everything we made
>> our own
>> under GPL/CC license.
>>
>> We do precautions against surveillance of unfree components.
>>
>> Sry, that we don't sleep with a Katana, I didn't sniff enough Cocain
>> yet
>> to become like that [1] >_<
>>
>>> Good night
>>> Michael
>> -lev
>>
>
> I also think you're absolutely right, I fully support your arguments
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gta04-owner mailing list
> Gta04-owner at goldelico.com
> http://lists.goldelico.com/mailman/listinfo/gta04-owner
>


More information about the Gta04-owner mailing list