[Discuss] Free Hardware

Emilio Velis contacto at emiliovelis.com
Wed Mar 11 20:28:23 UTC 2015

If you don't have a strong philosophical argument against the "sweat of the
brow" provisos, then there is no real case against property.

Regarding these arguments, although it's not specifically 'libre', a good
case for hardware as part of the commons and peer production is laid out by
Michel Bauwens in his FLOK research paper about transitioning to a
commons-based society:
https://floksociety.co-ment.com/text/xMHsm6YpVgI/view/. I think there are
more on the subject on that project, but there are so many papers that I
lost track of all of them. I think it was George Dafermos who was in charge
of developing the model for commons-based production.

On 11 March 2015 at 14:18, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's also confusing that in an argument based on pure morality, the
> conclusion is somehow that because something is too hard it is not a moral
> imperative. I never understood that part of Stallman's argument.
> He always said that hardware wasn't relevant to Free Software. It looks
> like he's changing his mind because proprietary hardware might make it
> impossible to run Free Software.
> I've never heard a good argument for why a thing MUST be libre. Taking it
> to that extreme seems like it just discourages creation. It means that the
> creator has to give up control of their creation or they're inescapably
> immoral merely because they didn't give up control. I don't think there's
> much of a precedent in philosophy for the idea that it's inherently wrong
> to control the thing you created. If you add something to the world the
> only reason anybody can have a discussion about whether or not you should
> give it away is because you made it in the first place. Seems like creation
> is a prerequisite to sharing.
> Of course, I strongly encourage sharing :)
> On Mar 11, 2015 1:01 PM, "Emilio Velis" <contacto at emiliovelis.com> wrote:
>> Not to mention the lack of viability in most cases of jumping right into
>> that definition without any context. I think that any 'free' endeavor of
>> the sort should not be derived from a philosophical standpoint on
>> intangibles, but rather on the study of philosophy behind private property
>> (perhaps an anti-Lockean view). Drawing a software-hardware parallel is
>> confusing to say the least.
>> On 11 March 2015 at 13:57, Drew Fustini <pdp7pdp7 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> hmm, just saw this on Slashdot:
>>> "Why We Need Free Digital Hardware Designs"
>>> http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/15/03/11/1648243/why-we-need-free-digital-hardware-designs
>>> Links to Wired:
>>> http://www.wired.com/2015/03/need-free-digital-hardware-designs/
>>> It appears to me that Richard Stallman wrote this article.
>>> Here is a quote:
>>> "the concept we really need is that of a free hardware design. That’s
>>> simple: it means a design that permits users to use the design (i.e.,
>>> fabricate hardware from it) and to copy and redistribute it, with or
>>> without changes. The design must provide the same four freedoms that
>>> define free software."
>>> I do like the philosophy behind it, but I am afraid the introduction
>>> of the term "Free Hardware" will increase confusion about hardware
>>> licensing.
>>> cheers,
>>> drew
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150311/7fa6a2c8/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list