[Gta04-owner] Me too

Neil Jerram neil at ossau.homelinux.net
Wed Oct 19 17:20:12 CEST 2011

I also think that Richard is wrong on this point.  However I'd like to 
add that I don't support or enjoy David's use of immoderate/offensive 


On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:53:53 +0200, Michele Brocco wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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