[Discuss] Free Hardware

Mario Gómez mxgxw.alpha at gmail.com
Thu Mar 19 17:11:10 UTC 2015

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Nancy Ouyang <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com>

> Why... why is WIRED giving airtime to this rms crank who can't even be
> bothered to reach out to the entire open source hardware community on this
> list (prior art, please) or mention the hard work done by OSHWA / Alicia
> Gibbs / other folks?

May be you can write to him. He usually answer his emails personally, the
problem is that it's possible that he gets more emails than the whole OSHWA
together so expect a little delay on his answer.

> --Nancy, semi-seriously, I realize rms is a Big Deal, but really? Wired is
> going to promulgate rms on this "free hardware" term when we've already
> standardized around open source hardware? I hope at least this wasn't
> published in the print magazine, or else I'm going to start picking a fight
> with rms and that's going to be a drastic waste of everyone's time, lol.

I really think that this whole thread is a waste of time.

If you think that the right path is to promote the OSHW definition... well
go for it, promote, evangelize about it. RMS usually gives his personal
opinion (that gets accepted because most of the time it ends being true).

However I think that you cannot impose a definition, I don't think that you
are going to change RMS opinion. I think that we have a clear definition of
what OSHW is, but for some reason that I don't understand there is always
someone that ask if something is (or isn't) OSHW and appears that no-one
reads or clearly understand the definition.

If there is a problem with the definition, things that are not very clear
then I think that would be more useful for the comunity if we point and
identify the ambiguities than just have this never-ending threads were all
we get mad about someone using the term in an inappropiate way or in a
different way that the OSHWA promotes it.

I suppose that everyone agrees on the OSHW definition. I propose instead
stop looking outside for people that doesn't understand the definition and
lets review here what is hard to understand for us or what we consider is
ambiguous. If we as community don't accept the definition as is ...then any
other person outside can propose something different as RMS is doing.


> ~~~
> narwhaledu.com, educational robots
> <http://gfycat.com/ExcitableLeanAkitainu> [[<(._.)>]] my personal blog
> <http://www.orangenarwhals.com>, orangenarwhals
> arvados.org (open source software for provenance, reproducing, and
> scaling your analyses)
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Drew Fustini <pdp7pdp7 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> FYI,  part 2 of 3 planned essays in Wired by rms on Free/Libre Hardware
>> Designs.
>> "Hardware Designs Should Be Free. Here’s How to Do It"
>> http://www.wired.com/2015/03/richard-stallman-how-to-make-hardware-designs-free
>> Coincidentally, rms visited Chicago, where I live, on Tuesday to give a
>> talk. I got to ask him what he thought was a good license for Free/Libre
>> Hardware designs.  He believes the GPLv3 is the correct license to use.
>> However, he noted it only covers those design elements to which copyright
>> applies.  (I know the subject of where that line falls has been covered by
>> Ari & others at past Open Hardware Summits).
>> Cheers
>> Drew
>> On Mar 11, 2015 2:57 PM, "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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150319/c7ca34b5/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list