On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:14:50 +1000, Ben Sturmfels <ben@stumbles.id.au> wrote:
There was some concern about the strong phrase "We commit that we will neither purchase nor recommend computers that strip users of this critical freedom", since it is foreseeable that someone could one day buy one of these devices either unknowingly or because there was no other alternative.
The 'critical freedom' here is the freedom to run an operating system of the user's choice. Manufacturers can enable this freedom merely by providing a way to disable restricted ('secure') boot through a UEFI setting, though obviously it would be preferable if they would allow the user to add non-Microsoft keys. It isn't much to ask. The bigger challenge of course will be with ARM based devices, though fortunately Microsoft has less control in that area, and vocal action now will make our position clear. I don't see how the FSF statement could be made much weaker short of removing any consequence to the petition. I can understand that this makes it complicated to sign if you were a purchasing officer for a large corporate, but for individuals running a handfall of machines and making recommendations, and for organizations such as Free Software Melbourne, it is simply a statement that we won't buy/recommend a machine that can only run Windows. How can we advocate for free software if we do not advocate for machines that can run this software? Glenn -- sks-keyservers.net 0xb1e82ec9228ac090