purism why does fsf and libreplanet embrace a misleading company?

[a]

On 3/11/20 10:33 PM, a via libreplanet-discuss wrote:
> My post is about getting official comments from
> libreplanet and fsf. Of course anybody can
> reply, but I already know how people attempt
> to defend purism's behavior.
>
>
> On 3/11/20 8:48 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> If I understand you correctly, you believe: Purism marketing talks about
>> software freedom and the goal of RYF 100% free hardware, but they don't
>> deliver to that level, and they minimize or hide the details. You worry
>> that people buy Purism products believing they are getting more complete
>> freedom than they actually receive. You doubt Purism's good faith, and
>> because you feel FSF should be skeptical rather than gracious about
>> these concerns, FSF is making a mistake by giving Purism a platform or
>> acknowledgment (at least without some explicit qualifiers from FSF about
>> these concerns). Is that right?
>
> Correct.
>
>
>
>> I agree with you that marketing claims should not mislead people about
>> the facts of products. Stating a goal of reaching some standard is not
>> the same as already being there, and the difference should be plain and
>> transparent.
>
> Correct.
>
>> I don't find your jump to speculating about bad faith at all warranted.
>> There's no evidence that FSF is corrupted in any way around this. And
>> there's inadequate (though perhaps non-zero) evidence that Purism has
>> any bad faith.
>
> https://trisquel.info/en/forum/librem13-fully-free-time
>
> educate yourself.
>
> About purism they claimed about their notebooks that
> there was a real possibility that intel would publish
> the software in question. Everybody in the field
> know, intel does not publish such
> pieces of source software.
>
> purism claimed reverse engineering was an option. The
> software in question is signed. Name a cryptographer who will
> agree, that breaking the cryptography is an option?
>
> As I said, one email to libreboot would have been enough.
> Also after people told purism that their claims were
> unfounded, purism did not rectify their websites.
>
> It is swindle if you deceive people in order to gain
> money.
>
> About fsf.
> fsf is known to be strict and harsh in matters of free
> software. It is a mystery why fsf has acted that amateurishly
> about purism. That is why I ask, has fsf received money
> or hardware from purism? Are there people who at the
> same time represent both fsf and purism?
>
>> In general, you're more likely to learn and also to get others to listen
>> when you express concerns from a position of genuine curiosity without
>> hints of accusations and other attacks.
>
> You do realize I have stated arguments? You have not. A
> pattern I have noticed from other defenders of purism.
>
> fsf has been informed by me and maybe others, how
> purism has acted. It makes fsf an accessory in
> purism's fraud. fsf failure on this matter results in loss of
> credibility among those who are able to look behind
> purism's deceptions.
>
>
>
>> It can also help to try to create a *strong-man* argument. Generate the
>> strongest argument you can for a defense of Purism and FSF, and then see
>> if that holds up to scrutiny. That's much more insightful than
>> generating weak or straw-man arguments or speculative suspicions.
>
> Start rebut my arguments.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

pEpkey.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys