[Discuss] Free Hardware
Ben Gray
ben at phenoptix.com
Fri Mar 20 14:55:07 UTC 2015
I would like to thank Matt for writing down what I was thinking, but in a
more ordered and constructive fashion.
--
Best Regards
Ben Gray - Director
www.phenoptix.com
twitter.com/phenoptix
plus.google.com/+phenoptix
On 20 March 2015 at 14:19, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Nancy Ouyang <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 1) well, i'll report back / try to catch him in person if he ignores my
>> email
>>
>> 2) man, i'm just not really worried about showing rms my respect, i doubt
>> he is in want or need of it.
>>
>
>> occasionally i feel like setting things on fire and that results in me
>> calling people (who I think can take it) names, i'm not really sure about a
>> good fix for that. maybe i need to drink more grapefruit juice.
>>
>
> It shouldn't take effort to address people in a baseline respectful way.
> If you stick to ideas instead of personal value it's easy to bypass the
> person and just hash out the ideas. That way you save yourself the effort
> of coming up with rationalizations for why it's okay to relieve your
> tension by calling strangers names or where exactly the dividing line is
> between someone it's "okay" to abuse and someone who's "not ready" for it
> yet. Just because it's the most intuitive way to express yourself doesn't
> mean it's a good idea.
>
> Also...Stallman's insistence that people should use free licenses for
> software (and now for hardware designs) is not a bad thing. There isn't all
> that much difference between free and open source licenses. What does it
> matter if he just states "use free licenses" and then moves on with his
> life? The whole article, including byline and license, was less than 1400
> words. No, he didn't mention OSHWA but he also didn't mention the FSF or
> CERN. A description of the community, or a history lesson, wasn't the point
> of the (short) article.
>
> If you want to exert energy on something it's better to be agreeable and
> constructive. Instead of arguing that it's okay to call someone names and
> attack them for not writing about what you want to read about do the
> opposite. Stallman wrote a short article about a specific topic. If you're
> going to contact him, why not ask him questions that extend the topic in
> another direction and write your own article for your community? For all
> you know he'll be happy to let you use his answers in your article and you
> might even like his answers. Stranger things have happened.
>
>
>>
>> i'm much more concerned about jane doe newcomers who might think i would
>> be equally publicly critical of them (ergo, developing a toxic / neckbeard
>> atmosphere)
>>
>> ~~~
>> 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 Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Wouter Tebbens <wouter at freeknowledge.eu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Nancy,
>>>
>>> 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
>>> > anyway.
>>> you should, but don't expect him to embrace the open source hardware
>>> term ;-)
>>>
>>> > 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
>>>
>>> [cut]
>>>
>>> > 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
>>> > research.
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> best regards,
>>>
>>> Wouter
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ~~~
>>> > 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
>>> > (pragmatical).
>>> > >
>>> > > 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 ;-)
>>> >
>>> > best,
>>> >
>>> > Wouter
>>> > >
>>> > > 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>
>>> > 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150320/28ba73eb/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list