[Discuss] OSHW & Economics

[Marketply]

The case also can be made that we streamline what open hardware means, to
include: 1) no restrictions to remix and share hardware by its makers 2) no
restrictions to access, remix, and share the equipment used to create that open
hardware.

So basically it's a more strict definition but as long as you're not restricted
by anyone's IP to access/remix the source materials and the methods to recreate
hardware, it's open.

Marino Hernandez
(just a founder of Marketply <http://www.marketply.org> )
203-429-4205


> 
>   > > On November 24, 2013 at 5:53 PM Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >   This is the only thing I can find that's recent and it implies that his
> > perspective hasn't changed in 10 years.
> > 
> >   <http://www.processmakerblog.com/uncategorized/the-processmaker-developers-meet-with-richard-stallman/>
> > 
> >   " All in all, the conversation was very interesting for all involved, but
> > Stallman was pressed to keep up with his email, so he pulled out his famous
> > Lemote Yeeloong <http://www.lemote.com/english/yeeloong.html>  laptop, a
> > small-screen portable whose entire specs and firmware code are available for
> > free download on the internet.  The appearance of the legendary device
> > provoked a rumination about what this new type of hardware should be termed.
> > Reacting to our use of the term “free hardware”, Stallman observed that it
> > wasn’t really “free” in the same way as software since only companies with
> > access to sophisticated equipment have the ability to create the hardware
> > from the specs. Perhaps in 20 years Stallman mused that the average person
> > would be able to create hardware from the specs, but at the current time it
> > wasn’t in the same category as free software from the point of view of the
> > user. Even thought hardware increasingly is developed as software with
> > Verilog and otherhardware description languages, Stallman argued that that
> > fact didn’t make much difference for the average user of the hardware.
> > Therefore, he suggested that we use the term “hardware with published
> > specifications”–certainly a mouthful compared to “free hardware” (or the
> > taboo term “open hardware <http://www.openhardware.net/> “), but useful for
> > provoking thought about the future of hardware development."  [emphasis
> > added]
> > 
> >   Although the Free Software Foundation has certified some hardware as
> > "respecting your freedom." So there's
> > that.<http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/respects-your-freedom>
> > 
> >  > 
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131127/663bfdd8/attachment-0001.html>