[Replicant] basic phone with 100% free software to use on Verizon?

Paul Kocialkowski contact at paulk.fr
Mon Dec 14 19:49:19 UTC 2015


Hi,

Le lundi 14 décembre 2015 à 01:09 +0000, Mychaela Falconia a écrit :
> Paul Kocialkowski <contact at paulk.fr> wrote:
> > I'd love to live in a world where free software would
> > be defined only by the ideas carried by the concept, with no legal
> > ground as that would be unnecessary or obsolete. But this is not the
> > world we live in [...]
> 
> The world we live in is meant to be changed, and the change begins
> with you.  The most effective way to change the world is to live and
> act *as if the change you seek is already here*, and that is what I
> do.  If everyone starts defining free software the way I do, then this
> new sans-legalities definition will become the generally accepted
> definition, and hence the truth.  I am simply being one of the first.

First off, let me point out that you're making a few assumptions here
that are not totally obvious. You're saying that the most effective way
to bring about change is to be disruptive and clearly mark a separation
between the old, deprecated and the new and good, by behaving without
regard to the old. The first thing that strikes me is that this is
precisely not the way RMS decided to go. Instead, he chose to use the
current system in such a way that would make free software valid within
this old and deprecated system. And I think most of us here (including
myself) will agree to say that all this copyright nonsense truly is
deprecated (if it was ever legitimate). However, it is very obvious now
that free software could hardly have evolved as well as it did if it
hadn't been for this choice. Of course, that introduced some regrettable
shifts (among which we can cite open source), but the overall result is
still overwhelmingly good. On the other hand, being disruptive makes it
much harder for people to understand us and join us: the gap is simply
too big and requires a lot of thinking before doing anything. So I
wouldn't say that your approach is the most effective one.
I haven't thought about the question as deeply as would be required to
actually come with an insightful view on this topic, but it is
definitely not as obvious as you make it sound.

Then, my point is about people understanding you, nothing more. 
By saying free software to describe your project, without further
indications or details, most people will simply understand that is is
licensed under a free software license and fits within the rules of
copyright. Thus, you'll be failing at communicating here, both to
accurately describe your project and to express your ideals of a
copyright-less society. What is the point of insisting on using a word
with a precise and engaged meaning if nobody's going to understand what
you really mean by it? And that is only for the drawback on your side.
On their side, it is actually much worse, since people get confused and
get the wrong idea about your project, something I really care a lot not
to see happening around here.

So as long as your copyright-less understanding of the free software
term is not the widely used one, I don't see the point on insisting on
using it to describe your project. Or at least, you should attach an
explanation of what you entail in that term, so that people actually
know what you're talking about.

My sole concern here is to make it so that people don't lack that
fundamental piece of information. If you were to attach it with your
statements when describing your project as free software, I would rest
assured.

> It is fully within our power to make copyrights irrelevant and
> ineffective, and we can do it right now, literally this minute: it is
> as simple as just ignoring them.  If not only me, but every one of you
> - yes, YOU - were to start ignoring copyrights tonight, then by the
> morning all copyrights will be completely irrelevant by virtue of
> being unenforceable: there are 7 billion people in the world, and if
> every one of us w/o exception starts to ignore copyrights principally
> and systematically, it will be logistically impossible for the
> vanishingly small pro-copyright lobby to go after all of us.

On a personal note, I really like your enthusiasm here. And really, I'd
love it if the mass actually cared enough to bring about change in the
blink of an eye, unanimously. And I really think there is too much to
overcome for most people to agree with us, especially when talking about
software. However, the idea that copyright is basically invalid seems to
come more and more naturally to the younger generations regarding
cultural content, such as music and films, which may, and probably will,
bring some change in our societies. Let's only hope that it also affects
other fields where copyright is also a tyranny.

> > and right now, and in practice, your software fits the
> > description of proprietary software, not free software.
> 
> Only in eyes of lawyers, license worshippers and other suppressive
> persons, but NOT in the eyes of the remaining 99% of Humanity.

I understand what you mean, but again, that's not who people think. Most
people still see legal guarantees as a rock-solid fondation on which to
base trust, compared to a stranger's good word and the best odds that a
company won't sue. That's what's at stake here: simply declaring your
software free is not enough for people who didn't take the step you took
in rejecting copyright (and, at large, citizenship) in the context of
our societies.

Now you may want to pretend that those people and their positions do not
exist, and thus assume that everyone you're talking to behaves the way
you do and understands the concept of free software as you do, but let
me assure you that this is not a prerequisite to subscribe to the
Replicant mailing list, so those people do exist, and I would see it as
a great sign of disrespect that you decided not to inform them under the
pretext that don't think like you do.

> > [...] and that it's
> > hurting development of free software alternatives, which is all
> > factually correct.
> 
> Claims of factual correctness require proof.  What proof do you have
> that OsmocomBB will magically flourish into a practically usable
> alternative to the status quo totally closed and proprietary phone
> basebands in the event that FreeCalypso dies?  On the contrary, all
> available evidence suggests that OsmocomBB will remain a stagnant,
> effectively abandoned dead-end project whether I exist or not.

I never stated that OsmocomBB will automatically (and magically) succeed
as soon as your project dies. I'm saying that encouraging people to look
at and use the leaked proprietary TI code burns them away from
contributing to OsmocomBB and generally speaking, puts OsmocomBB's
developers in an uncomfortable situation, where they have to carefully
review each contribution not to come from the leak (something you're
probably very comfortable with), which is hurting the project's
development.

> On the other hand, your suppression of FreeCalypso (i.e., your efforts
> to ensure that as few people as possible learn about its existence)
> *is* actively harming those human beings who are currently suffering
> the evils of the status quo.

It seems that you have misunderstood my intent in this precise thread.
I have not been trying to "ensure that as few people as possible learn
about its existence", simply to ensure that people are not mislead into
believing that it is what it's not.

I personally believe that your project hurts free software development,
and I will keep making statements in that direction. However, you are
free to talk about your project on the Replicant mailing list (and for
that matter, in other places as well) and I do not intend to take any
active action to prevent you from promoting your project, as long as you
do it respectfully and without misleading people.

Even in the fight of free software against proprietary, I have always
thought that it is of the utmost importance to provide information to
people and let them make their own choices instead of deciding what to
do for them. I do not believe in forcing people to see things the way I
do, and I accept their personal choices when they are not the same as
mine (even though one might argue that few choices only affect the
people taking them in our modern societies). Same goes in that
situation.

> Because OsmocomBB most likely WILL NOT produce anything practically
> usable within the lifetime of most of us here, dangling it like a
> carrot in front of a donkey (but always out of its reach) does *not*
> provide any real, tangible help to those who are suffering in the
> status quo - therefore, by denying those suffering from proprietary
> phones an opportunity to learn about the existence of FreeCalypso, you
> are simply condemning them to remaining in the status quo (utterly
> closed and proprietary phones with zero visibility into their inner
> workings) forever, instead of your imaginary outcome of OsmocomBB
> emerging as a champion.

Well, I see your project as something negative, for reasons I have
already mentioned, so from that perspective, between a world with
OsmocomBB not succeeding and FreeCalypso producing a usable result while
hurting OsmocomBB development and a world with only OsmocomBB not
succeeding, I'd prefer the latter.

I understand that it would be a set back for people such as yourself,
who do not obey the copyright regime and I'm sad both project cannot
exist simultaneously without having one cripple the other.

Oh and by the way, I'd love to get started on whether your project can
actually produce anything good and relevant. My bet is that it cannot:
the code is technically unmaintainable and certainly contains backdoors
that won't be spotted anytime soon. So under those conditions, my
technical advise would be to start it all from scratch anyway.

-- 
Paul Kocialkowski, Replicant developer

Replicant is a fully free Android distribution running on several
devices, a free software mobile operating system putting the emphasis on
freedom and privacy/security.

Website: https://www.replicant.us/
Blog: https://blog.replicant.us/
Wiki/tracker/forums: https://redmine.replicant.us/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/replicant/attachments/20151214/103365c2/attachment.asc>


More information about the Replicant mailing list