[Discuss] OSHW & Economics

Thu Nov 21 19:18:55 UTC 2013

> .../... free .../...
Hi all,
We might also obviously remember that the term "Libre" was also in the list
of potential terms to qualify "freedom to use under the 4 opensource
conditions".
>From our side, we often write "FLOSx", for "Free Libre OpenSource x". That
gives for software, FLOSS, and for Hardware FLOSH.
If we push one step more ahead with "goods", that could give: FLOSG.
And FLOSA, for Free Libre OpenSource Attitude !!!
Let us all be FLOSA !
;-)
Freely,
Antoine


2013/11/21 Marketply <contact at marketply.org>

>
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131121/17468418/attachment.html>