Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Todd Weaver]

Well this thread took a turn way off topic.

We are trying to have PureOS, our distribution reviewed, nothing more.
So let's discuss those points.

On Fri, 2016-06-10 at 15:42 +0200, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 18:16:28 -0400
> Julie Marchant <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I said, and this
> > is factually correct, that they were and still are promises you
> > cannot
> > keep. It is *impossible* to make any x86 CPU made after 2013
> > (including the ones used by the Purism laptops) respect your
> > freedom,
> > because they will not run without proprietary programs that are
> > *cryptographically signed* by the manufacturer of the CPU, and even
> > *Google*, one of the richest multi-national corporations in the
> > world, could not convince Intel to cooperate with them. And yet,
> > you
> > promised to deliver a laptop which respects your freedom with such
> > a
> > CPU anyway. Either Purism is being run by idiots, or it is being
> > run
> > by scam artists, especially if you are going to continue to insist
> > that you can make good on this impossible promise.

This near impossible task has nothing to do with PureOS, nor does it
have anything to do with FSF distribution endorsement. We are not (yet)
seeking FSF RYF certification, entirely because we are working to solve
the ME and FSP being issued from Intel. We'd welcome you signing our
petition[1], as one of many ways we are trying to solve this. But again
we are NOT seeking FSF RYF certification, so this topic is irrelevant
to our request for PureOS distribution endorsement.

> They should instead be Crystal clear with their customers.

We try very very hard, please point to an area or language that we
should be clearer about, and we will evaluate, a general "should be
clearer" is really hard for us to pin point an area of concern.

> Furthermore, what "progress" has Purism made? Let's break down the
> > current version of that fancy, deceptive progress bar:
> > 
> > * Everything up to and including "Bootloader Freed" is just a
> > long-winded way of saying "completely libre OS". That was the GNU
> > project and other projects like Linux, far predating Purism's
> > existence as a company.

We are not competing with "existing FSF endorsed systems" we are
competing to have people stop using Apple, HP, Google, Acer, etc.
preloaded with OSX, ChromeOS, or Windows. So the progress bar is to
clearly show where we are in relation to those companies, while still
providing the information needed to show we are not FSF RYF certified.

> Right now that OS isn't FSDG yet. However, even if it's not as
> easy as they though, it isn't out of reach:
> Some common packages to be removed or fixed are listed here:
> https://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_t
> he_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines
> 
> I wonder if the fact that they didn't chose an unmodified Trisquel is
> due to some integration of Tor inside their distribution.

We originally chose trisquel, but being fourth forked from Debian
didn't make much sense, when we can get closer to a reliable upstream
provider such as Debian, and meet the same goals.

> * "Fuse CPU for Unsigned Binaries": Some technical thing I don't
> > really understand, but people have commented that this is an
> > extremely easy thing to do and not particularly significant.
> Some laptop manufacturer use this, while some other don't. Puri.sm
> doesn't.

This is IRRELEVANT to getting PureOS distribution endorsement.
It is VERY RELEVANT to getting FSF RYF certification.

We are ONLY working on PureOS distribution endorsement in this thread.
Please stop combining the two.

> > * "Coreboot BIOS Released": Yeah, Coreboot, or rather Shimboot, is
> > running on PureOS. It was done by Coreboot volunteers; Purism had
> > nothing to do with the effort.
> They just manufactured hardware that permits you to replace your boot
> fimrware(BIOS/EFI/UEFI) by coreboot. I don't think that they were
> involved at all in that port. Instead they documented how to reflash
> the hardware or something like that on coreboot blog:
> https://blogs.coreboot.org/blog/2015/09/02/2015-08-28-librem-13-weekl
> y-bios-update/
> https://blogs.coreboot.org/blog/2015/08/24/2015-08-21-librem-13-
> weekly-progress-update/

Again has NOTHING to do with PureOS distribution endorsement. But YES
we WERE/ARE involved with coreboot. I personally have met a number of
times with Ron/Dave/Stefan, and we donated hardware to developers to
help us get this released for our Librem 13 hardware. We tried to hire
two developers that did not get this done quickly enough so we returned
to Ron/Dave/Stefan who helped us, and will probably continue to help us
in the future. This is a GOOD THING.

I am unsure why we should be verbally punished by working with the
community to advance our common goal.

I will repeat, this has NOTHING to do with PureOS distribution
endorsement.

> > * "Drive Firmware Freed": Nice Engrish.
> Where did you see that? A drive isn't a WiFi chip. Typo?

Again NOTHING to do with PureOS.
SSDs and HDDs have software flashable firmware, this is not a
requirement for FSF RYF certification, but something we'd like to have
freed.

...begin stream of more unrelated PureOS distribution endorsement...
> > But it's Think Penguin who
> > worked with people who were inside Qualcomm Atheros to get
> > essential
> > wireless firmware liberated, and Intel made their integrated
> > graphics
> > controllers work without proprietary firmware of their own accord
> > years ago. Purism did nothing to improve the situation here, which
> > is
> > still very bad and getting worse.
> They instead should advocate that they use the WiFi chips that works
> best for freedom.

That is what we do.

> Note that the cards supported by the ath5k and ath9k don't have a
> firmware.
> ThinkPenguin instead helped free the ones supported by the ath9k_htc
> driver. Theses are used to make USB WiFi cards.
> This was a very important contribution to software freedom.

By this logic we would have to write all the software ourselves? That
is completely counter to the point of free software licenses.

We run completely free software from the bootloader, kernel, operating
system, and all software. That is what we are saying, and trying to get
endorsement for.

> > Of course, all of this ultimately has no bearing on whether or not
> > PureOS qualifies as a GNU FSDG distro. But Purism's record does
> > justify being very cautious and thorough in the investigation of
> > it,
> > more so than e.g. LibertyBSD.

We are fine with a thorough investigation, we are not fine with lumping
FSF RYF certification requirements, that we have not yet met, into our
request to review PureOS for distribution endorsement.

> Sadly they would have been way more effective if they were crystal
> clear and could deliver on (maybe less impressive) claims.
> 
> For instance if some privacy profiteers package Tor in a wireless
> access point, they get a ton of criticism because it doesn't deliver:
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/charlatans-the-new-wave-of-privacy-profi
> teers/
> 
> Instead of some people do something very similar but do advertise
> clearly the limits of the device they sell, it gets promoted a lot:
> https://internetcu.be/
> 
> In the case of puri.sm, that would have helped them solve many of the
> problems they have a hard time with:
> They are for instance hiring, and if they were more clear, they may
> have had the ability to hire the coreboot developers they were
> looking
> for.

Again unrelated to PureOS distribution endorsement. We hired two
coreboot devs, that were not very productive, so we went back to the
community to get help, we are hiring for coreboot developers, and will
continue to look.

> Denis.

It is clear from the above "review" that GNU-linux-libre needs to focus
on the singular task of reviewing PureOS for distribution endorsement,
which is our request. And not any tangential or unrelated topics that
we are not yet trying to get FSF to certify.

We will not be submitting anything for FSF RYF certification until we
can put out hardware that can meet the strictures of that
certification. Just because we put out hardware and software does not
mean we have to meet both hardware certification and software
endorsement. Even though that is our long-term goal.

I hope this email helps move the needle in a positive manner toward
getting PureOS reviewed for FSF endorsement. We are committed to what
free software stands for, so let's work together to make the world a
better place.

Todd.

[1] https://puri.sm/posts/petition-for-intel-to-release-an-me-less-cpu-
design/

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part