On Wednesday 14 March 2007 20:37, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
So I take it that if we added some more layers of security to ensure that the devices will actually be used for their intended purpose, namely to make them run with fully Free Software, this would take care of the issue you are seeing?
In my opinion? No. It would not. The end result is the same, FSFE is distributing non-free softawre to people, and asking them to pay to get this non-free software.
The process is a high chance that there is more freedom in the end. Compromises like this - take proprietary stuff to liberate it - have been made by GNU hackers and FSF before, e.g. running on proprietary operating system when the other have been unpractical.
What if we asked people to send in some kind of application instead of distributing them by random? What if we introduced some kind of obligation to report back on the progress made in freeing it?
While this makes things it a bit better, it still does not make it right. What would happen if nobody does replace the non-free software on these devices?
Then it is likely that it was too hard. We cannot be sure that it can be done, until somebody has done it. Writing a report about this, will be quite an effort. If this person has demonstrated the technical abilities the time of the report will be worth more money then the device itself.
Does the person(s) send it back to the FSFE? Do they keep it? Do they get a refund?
They keep it and do not get a refund, because of the time spend trying to liberate it and writing the report. Also it might be that they later get better ideas and progress with the liberation.
This opens up alot more problem than it solves, and probobly alot more work on FSFE's side that could be spent doing something more useful.
It is just a proposal for doing something useful with the devices. Sending them back will also not be good, as the necessary public reasoning will be quite a lot of work and negative one as well.
Bernhard