Considering how they phrased it and the fact that no phone has the FSF's RYF certification I would tend to think it's because it's currently impossible.

That they took the time to add a note about RYF certification and that they will continue to keep the FSF up to date on this shows that they do care about this. I honestly don't think there's any more you could ask of them.

> it's currently impossible. […] I honestly don't think there's any more you could ask of them.

I don’t dispute that. I have no ill will towards them. I just, you know, won’t actually be buying the phone until one exists which is RYF-certified. I just felt it important that someone pointed this out – while surely their effort towards RYF compliance counts for much, it won’t get me all the way towards actually buying it. I’ll wish them all the luck in actually achieving it, but I (at least) won’t be buying anything until they actually get there.

Money shapes this world. It's not the voting booth where we voice our will, but where we spend our money.

Many companies don't consider libre and open components economically relevant. If that changed, they would cater to that segment.

If a company that offers more open devices than others is economically successful, then that is proof that there is economic relevance to this aspect.

Now, is the Librem5 a step into the right direction? If it is, I think it should be supported by all those that want a RYF-certified device.

I suppose I can understand this reasoning a bit, but it seems a little counter intuitive to me. There is literally no alternative. And without efforts like this it's unlikely there would ever be something that is RYF compliant. Accomplishing something like RYF certification requires work, money, and someone willing to try to accomplish it. There is someone that is willing to invest work to at least attempt to accomplish it, but they need money. Why not support them in their quest for this?

Suppose that I’m a vegetarian, but I really like sausage (maybe I acquired the taste before becoming vegetarian), but there are, for some reason, no makers of vegetarian sausages. Should I then accept whatever sausage is available which has the least amount of meat in it? Of course not; I’ll simply go without sausage.

Even if a sausage maker came along and tried to attract the vegetarian buyers with a new kind of sausage which had no meat in it, just a little bit of gelatin in it. They say they can’t currently make vegetarian sausage without any gelatin in it, but they’re working on it. Should I “support” them and buy the sausage with gelatin in it anyway? Of course not; I’m a vegetarian; gelatin means it’s off the table.

(I’m not necessarily really a vegetarian, of course; it’s just an analogy.)

I don't think that analogy is a fair comparison to make because it doesn't fairly portray that Purism doesn't have a choice in this. It is the upstream manufacturers who control this area, and they will have no reason at all to make something which is RYF approved unless someone big enough is pushing for it.

So to make this comparison more apt, it's more like a sausage maker who is focused on making vegetarian sausage. Now, it just so happens that they'd also love to make these sausages vegan sausages, but the suppliers of the contents of the sausage just don't make a "meat" which is vegan because literally no one with any power has asked for it before. If no one buys their sausages there is literally no chance of a vegan sausage being produced because there is just no reason for it.

Even that isn't really an apt comparison because it doesn't correctly portray the ubiquity of cell phones. I guess instead of a sausage maker it would be something more like "a producer of food", where there is literally no vegan food anywhere. So what I don't understand in all this is why someone who wants an RYF certified cell phone would choose not to support the one group even attempting such a thing. You don't even need to eat the sausage or use the phone in this case either, they just need the support.

This analogy is not good, because for a vegetarian there are other easy-obtainable things to eat. On the other side, in the case of handheld portals into the digital world, we do not have easy-obtainable alternatives.

Besides this weakness, the analogy relies on fanatism. One can easily become nearly vegan and have virtually all of the benefits while not needing to be totalitarian nor fanatic.

What phone are you using currently?

(I’ll answer about my thoughts and opinions are instead of what I am actually using.) I would not be adverse to using a “feature phone” – i.e. a non-updateable non-smartphone. It’s hard coded; no one can affect the software in it, so it would be OK if I can’t either. Of course a free (RYF-certified) phone would have much better features (including inspectable privacy guarantees), which is why I’m considering such a thing.

How do you know the software can't be affected remotely, considering the baseband processor?

I can’t know that, which is why I wrote “Of course a free (RYF-certified) phone would have much better features (including inspectable privacy guarantees), which is why I’m considering such a thing.”

If they manage to launch Libre 5, the future iterations may fix this shortcoming. If Libre 5 fails, we are stuck with Android & iPhone, which have much bigger problems.

Even if Librem 5 fails, there will be subsequent fund-a-significantly-more-free-phone attempts. $1.5m is really a small amount.

Anyway I do hope Librem 5 succeeds (meeting threshold, shipping...going mass market...) and will probably back it.

> we will rather go without than get the current good-enough product

What are you using now?

> If there were none of us, there would be no commercial incentive for any company to keep improving in the right direction

Well, no, the current Librem5 campaign shows there are folks who are willing to shell out money for something drastically better than any other solutions out there today. It's not perfect, but I would rather encourage companies who are striving towards perfection even if they are not perfect today.

I think Purism understands that there are still gaps in coverage, they even admit it on the campaign page. If they no longer make progress towards closing those gaps in future products, then I'm right there with you.. they should be dropped.

My philosophy aligns more with the FSFE than the FSF.

which bit disqualifies for RYF ooi? the need for a proprietary baseband module, even if it’s “external”?

That information is in the second link I provided.

Oh, sorry - missed it in the FAQ. My understanding (which isn’t particularly well researched) is that any 3G or 4G packet data requires implementing algorithms (compression and error corection stuff) which are unfortunately encumbered with software patents, and cannot be implemented in a FOSS manner unless someone paid the licensing fees for everyone (similar to Cisco paying the H.264 patent fees for OpenH264), or the patent pool gets bored and relinquishes their patents.

When do the patents expire?

Unsure - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE_(telecommunication)#Patent... is pretty depressing, if 3-5% of handset manufacturer revenue goes on paying off the patents :( Separate to patents, I suspect there are also 'secret' constants (lookup tables for compression codes etc) which folks may attempt to copyright, a bit like the DVD CSS secrets...