rando832

Try abrowser from the Trisquel apt repo. It is a firefox rebuild with a few tweaks for privacy.

Gplv2 violations are widespread, we need much much more enforcement and more copyleft software, and this could be a huge win. Free software's main purpose should not be to be proprietarized, too much of it now is a group effort among companies to more efficiently lure users to trade their freedom for functionality.

> It's also unclear to me what the distinction is between this part of the criteria and the RYF certification.

Ya, you are confused.

The PureOS endorsement is about a distro you can download and put on a computer (the distro doesn't include a bios or related firmware).

RYF is about all the software that comes on a computer/device, and the website you use to buy it, it's much more expansive.

So, Purism's computers are not RYF certified, but they come with a distro that is fully free (the disto does not include some nonfree firmware that comes on Purism's computers).

Just no. Your link is about coreboot. The FSF endorsement is of PureOS (does not contain coreboot).

And Microsoft said all GPL was a cancer and unamerican and viral and disallowed it from about 50k engineer's computers due to "legal risk of GPL virality", and this was when they were by far the biggest software company. Wait, they lied? It was all FUD and really about threatening their business model. They changed their policies and actually said publicly they were wrong. Is it so hard to believe?

The "scripts to control" clause as you say is in all versions of the GPL, exactly the same in GPLv3, and slightly different I presume in GPLv2. It has been tested in court, and its been found to not be expansive like the fud you are spreading.

So, basically, exactly what the article says, a big nothing. The plants thing is stupid, rms doesn't hate plants. Sarah Mei appears to have no special reason to hate rms, shes a well known person who is extremely negative about anyone in software who's said anything offensive, including Linus, etc.

> the border agent doesn't care if the data is technically in the cloud

In reality, they do. They are not asking you for every password you know and access to all the remote systems you have access to, and any that you can get access to if you ask someone, etc, etc.

Also, if it's built on open source as he says, that likely means linux, and tons of code that John Deer is not reviewing, so... trust you that john deer needs to protect farmers from letting people fix the code THEY WROTE. lol.

> If a team of hundred of engineers struggle with their codebase internally, Joe Farmer isn't going to have a fucking clue how to repair their software correctly.

> But trust me on this, locking this down is a very good idea.

Joe Farmer may not know, but Joe farmer has "the internet", and ability to pay an independent software engineer. And people would absolutely find and fix bugs that john deer is missing.

Honestly, your argument sounds so ridiculous, it sounds like saying "it's to protect the children from terrorism."