Submitted by pizzaiolo at May 13, 2018 at 2:30 PM in AskRaddle
Viewing a single comment thread.
View all comments
I beg to differ, the only real change is that companies can't exploit the software.
Differ from the licence being non-libre, or the licensing unfortunate?
The software is libre.
It does not conform to the definition of libre software by the FSF, which is how the term is most commonly used and understood. It may be libre by some other definition; that is likely not as widely accepted, and the statement does not hold universally true.
Good for them. Getting screwed over by business in terms of monetary compensation is worse than not getting code back, and the FSF won't admit that.
the FSF is run by rightlibs
As far as I know, the FSF has only endorsed PureOS, which is a distribution of GNU+Linux by Purism that ought to be entirely libre, and adhere to the FSF's criteria. (Which, I presume, it does.)
The resources you provide talk about specific laptops containing non-libre blobs, which is true, but those laptops have not been endorsed by the FSF. Endorsement of specific hardware is normally done via the Respects Your Freedom programme, which holds no mention of Purism. (Please do let me know if you find an endorsement of this kind elsewhere, though.)