[Discuss] OSHW & Economics

[Marketply]

> On November 20, 2013 at 2:42 PM Javier Serrano <Javier.Serrano at cern.ch> wrote:
>
>
> I can only speak for our case at CERN BE-CO-HT. We were more inspired by
> Free Software than by Open Source Software. The only reason we don't
> call our stuff "Free Hardware" is that it's even more misleading than
> "Free Software". The "free" in "Free Software" is of course about
> freedom (not price), a subject which is not the main focus in Open
> Source. Both stands are respectable, of course, and we feel at ease in
> both families, but one thing is for sure: the choice of the word "free"
> has caused endless confusion. Even if you are aware of what the "free"
> in Free Software means, as I am sure you are, it's too damn easy to fall
> into the trap of talking about "free beer" when criticizing Free
> Software, as you just did in the preceding paragraph.


We can change it from 'free' to 'freed' and problem solved.

It can't get confused as much for free beer. And much easier to tie to the
liberty of using something.

'Freed' even has more advantages: it's seems more active when we read it, as if
the mere labeling with the word is saying " this has been freed, yet there await
more software and hardware to be freed". Like a conquered challenge! And a call
to action for more! Freed software. Freed hardware. Technology freed open. Also
freeing creative content.

The word is unifying across all of free culture. Including all knowledge in the
public domain freed of law and restrictions.

OpenPlex is an (upcoming) open-source technology park that will use the word
'Freedware' to the effect of unifying all open technology: software, hardware,
firmware under one open banner. A trademark for all people in the marketplace –
buyers and sellers – to rest assured that freed goods are really true to their
licenses (OSHW, GPL, MPL, MIT, Apache, etc).

And will invite the licensors to collaborate openly with its community (and
drive compatibility between licenses?). As OpenPlex will strive to be the most
transparent company in the world, distributed globally, sharing its knowledge in
real time universally, and empowering its community to veto any major decision
that people feel runs counter to the company's core principles.



> On November 20, 2013 at 3:48 PM Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>  Implicit in Stallman's argument (quoted above) is that a "free as in speech"
> program, once created, can be implemented by anyone at little-to-no cost.
> Giving away the IP rights to code dramatically reduces the "beer" costs for
> everyone else.
> 

 The free software project doesn't give away rights, they work under copyright
law to license rights.


> On November 19, 2013 at 5:09 PM Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>  It doesn't actually undermine the goals of the open source community. If the
> problem solution is stable, then it's appropriate to mass produce it. However,
> mass production usually requires making changes to the design, which will not
> be supported by the community if they're not open sourced by the manufacturer.
> So, the community will continue chugging along. Individual inventors might
> feel slighted, or even taken advantage of, but "open source" specifically does
> not provide the same individual protections that "proprietary" does. The power
> and protection is based in the community, not in any one individual.
> 
>  People who don't understand that are going to get their feelings hurt, but
> it's the same as misunderstanding anything else. If someone wants individual
> protection they should go get a patent, rather than try to squeeze personal
> rights back into "open source" when they were given up on purpose.
>   .....
> 

>  Well...they probably don't call what they're selling "open source." Even if
> they did, the structure of "open source" prevents any attempt to use the law
> to stop them. The whole point of "open source" is that the inventor gives away
> most of the rights to their intellectual property, including the right to make
> money off of it. People who "open source" things shouldn't be surprised when
> someone else does exactly the things they were permitted to do.
> 

No one in open source gives away rights. They enjoy the same full copyright
protections as proprietary does. The license merely makes it easier to share the
copyrighted material and specifically requires certain things like licensing any
changes under the same license and including the source files. The license is
legally binding.

If that is incorrect, someone please chime in.

Cheers!

😃,

Marino Hernandez
(just a founder of Marketply <http://www.marketply.org> )
203-429-4205
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131120/82a1a3e7/attachment.html>