View Single Post
joerg_rw's Avatar
Community Council | Posts: 1,749 | Thanked: 9,376 times | Joined on Mar 2010 @ SOL 3
Originally Posted by qwazix View Post
My take is that Neo900 team and FSF are speaking different languages regarding the last point. Neo900 team proposes something that would provide the best possible privacy, while the FSF, to endorse anything requires all the software to be free. I think we are in a situation that the FSF really likes the project, wants to endorse it, and is trying to find a loophole in it's own guidelines to do so.

By christening the modem "circuit" it doesn't make the problem any less, it just moves the problem out of the jurisdiction of the FSF and into that of one imaginary FHF.

If there is another, saner way to actually be compliant with the FSF guidelines and at the same time ensure decent privacy, IMO it would benefit both parties.
I wholeheartedly agree with every word you wrote :-)
The problem is in FSF's definition of own "territory". In my book it's not their call to judge about peripherals, no matter how closely integrated or remotely attached those peripherals are mechanically. For every normal user it's pretty clear that the printer for example is irrelevant for evaluating FOSS properies of the PC and the OS running on that (unless it's a GDI aka "windows" printer). Likewise it's not relevant what firmware is running on the USB UMTS dongle you plug into your PC. Now what we did is moving the dongle inside the case but it still is a USB dongle for all the logical/IT properties. FSF needs a better more sharp definition of what they consider "system" and what's "peripheral" and not relevant to them. We (Neo900 team) can't help with that.


The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to joerg_rw For This Useful Post: