[Arm-netbook] [Formerly "Re: Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model:

[Jean Flamelle]

On 5/31/17, John Luke Gibson <eaterjolly at gmail.com> wrote:
> Neverminding the ridiculous length of that subject line..
>
> I just thought an interesting thought.
>
> First, a little context, (I know how rms feels about blockchains) I
> was investigating slock.it and thinking to myself "why don't they just
> make a hardware standard like eoma instead of closing their
> development and calling it open?" (Like, Pi-Top is [n]ever gonna
> release those stl files)
> (I realize that's a loaded 'just' cause it sounds easy, but is one of
> the most difficult possible)
>
> Then, it dawned on me: Lulzbot doesn't do that.. Wait, Lulzbot
> exclusively uses open software in their development.. Then *bam* like
> a boulder (nothing to do with Lulzbot): GPL-violations, improper GUI
> training, failing to extend using APIs/Addons, failing to
> bugsmash/'track-issues', failing to participate in mailing-lists and
> irc, failing to simply fork when development goals conflict, planned
> esoteric-ism and/or planned obsolescence, failure to secure clientèle
> data by using fully free systems (when relevant), failure to
> participate-in and be-aware-of public conversations about the
> underlining security of said systems (when relevant), failure to
> disclose supplychain information/identities (when relevant), failure
> at general transparency.
>
> All of these things traditionally go wrong with not only companies
> that use open source, but companies in-general.
>
> Then, it truly truly dawned on me, free software needs standards
> organizations as well.
>