[Discuss] Free Hardware

Antoine, as a contact of a free smallwindturbine project smallwindturbineproj.contactor at gmail.com
Thu Mar 12 11:15:20 UTC 2015

Excuse me all, but I just would like to write this: the question of "free"
for everything-but-software, is a right question, with or without
philosophical inputs, with or without pro or cons arguments.

For instance, the level of requirements of GNU-GPL terms and conditions, is
not yet completely replicated and reach into the non-software univers. That
is a fact.
The question is: is it possible to reach such a level of GNU-GPL for
everything-but-software, and how could it be reach ?
The question should not be: reaching such a level, is it good or bad ?

Works, publications, of FSF or their representatives or members, on this
question of "free notion for everything-but-software", will be very useful
for all of us, don't you think ?


2015-03-11 21:28 GMT+01:00 Emilio Velis <contacto at emiliovelis.com>:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150312/8b523f87/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list