From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- .../blog/articles/en/loyal-computers.html | 225 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 225 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/loyal-computers.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/loyal-computers.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/loyal-computers.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/loyal-computers.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..11960e8 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/loyal-computers.html @@ -0,0 +1,225 @@ + + +What Does It Mean for Your Computer to Be Loyal? +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

What Does It Mean for Your Computer to Be Loyal?

+ +

by Richard Stallman

+ +

We say that running free +software on your computer means that its operation is under your +control. Implicitly this presupposes that your computer will do +what your programs tell it to do, and no more. In other words, that +your computer will be loyal to you.

+ +

In 1990 we took that for granted; nowadays, many computers are +designed to be disloyal to their users. It has become necessary to +spell out what it means for your computer to be a loyal platform that +obeys your decisions, which you express by telling it to run certain +programs.

+ +

Our tentative definition consists of these principles.

+ +
+
Installability
+ +
+

Any software that can be replaced by someone else, +the user must be empowered to replace.

+ +

Thus, if the computer requires a password or some other secret in +order to replace some of the software in it, whoever sells you the +computer must tell you that secret as well.

+
+ +
Neutrality towards software
+ +
+

The computer will run, without prejudice, whatever software you +install in it, and let that software do whatever its code says to +do.

+ +

A feature to check for signatures on the programs that run is +compatible with this principle provided the signature checking is +fully under the user's control. When that is so, the feature helps +implement the user's decisions about which programs to run, rather than +thwarting the user's decisions. By contrast, signature checking that +is not fully under the user's control violates this principle.

+
+ +
Neutrality towards protocols
+ +
+

The computer will communicate, without prejudice, through whatever +protocol your installed software implements, with whatever users and +whatever other networked computers you direct it to communicate +with.

+ +

This means that computer does not impose one particular service rather +than another, or one protocol rather than another. It does not +require the user to get anyone else's permission to communicate via a +certain protocol.

+
+ +
Neutrality towards implementations
+ +
+

When the computer communicates using any given protocol, it will +support doing so, without prejudice, via whatever code you choose +(assuming the code implements the intended protocol), and it will do +nothing to help any other part of the Internet to distinguish which +code you are using or what changes you may have made in it, or to +discriminate based on your choice.

+ +

This entails that the computer rejects remote attestation, that is, +that it does not permit other computers to determine over the network +whether your computer is running one particular software load. Remote +attestation gives web sites the power to compel you to connect to them +only through an application with DRM that you can't break, denying you +effective control over the software you use to communicate with them.

+ +

We can comprehend remote attestation as a general scheme to allow +any web site to impose tivoization or “lockdown” on the +local software you connect to it with. Simple tivoization of a +program bars modified versions from functioning properly; that makes +the program nonfree. Remote attestation by web sites bars modified +versions from working with those sites that use it, which makes the +program effectively nonfree when using those sites. If a computer +allows web sites to bar you from using a modified program with them, +it is loyal to them, not to you.

+
+ +
Neutrality towards data communicated
+ +
+

When the computer receives data using whatever protocol, it will +not limit what the program can do with the data received through that +communication.

+ +

Any hardware-level DRM violates this principle. For instance, the +hardware must not deliver video streams encrypted such that only the +monitor can decrypt them.

+
+ +
Debugability
+ +
+

The computer always permits you to analyze the operation of a +program that is running.

+
+ +
Completeness
+ +
+

The principles above apply to all the computer's software +interfaces and all communication the computer does. The computer must +not have any disloyal programmable facility or do any disloyal +communication.

+ +

For instance, the AMT functionality in recent Intel processors runs +nonfree software that can talk to Intel remotely. Unless disabled, +this makes the system disloyal.

+
+
+ +

For a computer to be fully at your service, it should come with +documentation of all the interfaces intended for software running in +the computer to use to control the computer. A documentation gap as +such doesn't mean the computer is actively disloyal, but does mean +there are some aspect of it that are not at your service. Depending +on what that aspect does, this might or might not be a real problem.

+ +

We ask readers to send criticisms and suggestions about this +definition to +<computer-principles@gnu.org>.

+ +

Loyalty as defined here is the most basic criterion we could think +of that is meaningful. It does not require that all the software in +the computer be free. However, the presence +of nonfree +software in the computer is an obstacle to verifying that the +computer is loyal, or making sure it remains so.

+ +

History

+ +

Here is the list of substantive changes in this page.

+ + + + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3