[Discuss] Free Hardware
wouter at freeknowledge.eu
Fri Mar 20 12:11:05 UTC 2015
On 03/20/2015 12:48 PM, Nancy Ouyang wrote:
> 1) Hmph, well I'm kind of an optimistic person, so I'll reach out to rms
you should, but don't expect him to embrace the open source hardware
> 2) I respect rms for his contributions to the related but distinct free
> software movement that inspires oshw, but i am absolutely going to
> criticize him for not doing his research when he is branching out to
> another field (albeit one inspired by his work).
of course, that's great to point out any failures in his article
> Ideally, it'd be tailored to the person, since people interpret things
> depending on their own life stories and their various levels of
> self-confidence, and there are absolute thresholds, like it's never okay
> to send someone death or rape threats, and it's generally bad to
> criticize a person's character instead of his actions. But I am
> 99.999999% sure rms is not going to end up in tears because some no-name
> person (me) called him a crank or a jerk (which, admittedly, is not Best
> Practices, but sometimes happens when I feel particularly batpoop angry
> and aggressive) and especially not that I told him to show he did his
calling somebody names isn't generally a good thing, and doesn't show
much respect, which you said to hold for him under 1) ;-)
> 3) Actually, since rms uses the term "we" in the article, maybe we need
> to reach out to FSF in addition to Wired. Does OSHWA talk to FSF?
> 4) p.s. err, wouter & folks, i'd prefer if you stopped using the vague
> 'some' and just called me out if that's what you intended... personally,
> i'm not going to hate you for calling me out, but it's hard to respond
> to vaguely directed criticism
You took it personally, so I answer you personally in this mail.
But for the rest of it, please don't take it personally, I value your
and others' contributions to this list! And I wouldn't want to loose our
collective energy and precious time in personal discussions.
> narwhaledu.com <http://narwhaledu.com>, educational robots
> <http://gfycat.com/ExcitableLeanAkitainu> [[<(._.)>]] my personal blog
> <http://www.orangenarwhals.com>, orangenarwhals
> arvados.org <http://arvados.org> (open source software for provenance,
> reproducing, and scaling your analyses)
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Wouter Tebbens <wouter at freeknowledge.eu
> <mailto:wouter at freeknowledge.eu>> wrote:
> On 03/19/2015 06:12 PM, Matt Maier wrote:
> > They're giving him airtime because he's Richard Stallman
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
> > He started GNU, the concept of copyleft, and the Free Software
> > Foundation.
> Exactly, for those great contributions he merits a little more
> respectful treatment than some give him on this list.
> > He talks a lot about the distinction between free software
> > and open source software, and his argument that free software is a moral
> > imperative. Every now and then people ask him to extend his argument to
> > hardware and this article is interesting because it looks like his
> > perspective has evolved a bit.
> We don't need to exactly agree with RMS's view and way of putting
> things, but it sure does help to keep clear where the open movement
> comes from, and that from an outside perspective, be it free/libre or
> open, we all advocate for commons-based peer produced forms of
> knowledge, in our case of hardware designs. That's our shared vision,
> and even if we can dispute about it, Richard is part of that vision, for
> many many years already.
> Of course the morale/ethics perspective is harder to accept for many,
> and focusing on the pragmatic side of having designs that allow people
> to use, make, modify, distribute and sell is very valuable as well, and
> more easily accepted in general. At the end, maybe it is two sides of
> the same coin.
> But I think it is very valuable that we have people like Richard
> insisting on the ethical side. At the end adoption in part depends on
> people valuing the ethical in combination with the pragmatical. Take
> renewable energy, early adopters mainly cared about a sustainable
> future, even if that would cost them money and time to solve
> impracticalities (that was for ethical reasons mainly). Now it is going
> mainstream and people adopt it (also) for economic reasons
> > It seems unlikely that he'd reach out to the open source hardware
> > community because he doesn't think open source hardware is really
> > relevant to what he's doing (free software).
> Richard wasn't happy when people rebranded Free Software into Open
> Source Software and has fought about this for years. He will always take
> the opportunity to clarify why he disagrees with the term "open source"
> and why he values "freedom" as defining criterion. For many people new
> to this discussion, that provides insights. For others who already have
> heard it, it may be tiring. But take him for who he is and don't try to
> convince him of adopting the OSHW term, that won't work ;-)
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Nancy Ouyang <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com <mailto:nancy.ouyang at gmail.com>
> > <mailto:nancy.ouyang at gmail.com <mailto:nancy.ouyang at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> > 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?
> > --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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at lists.oshwa.org <mailto:discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
> > http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org <mailto:discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
More information about the discuss