[Discuss] Free Hardware
Jeffrey Warren
jeff at publiclab.org
Fri Mar 20 16:01:27 UTC 2015
Also Nancy - for what it's worth, my understanding is that Stallman *does*
know about OSHW, and chose to ignore it due to his position re: free/open.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Ben Gray <ben at phenoptix.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d55db844/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list