[Discuss] Free Hardware
Adriano Zianna
adriano.zianna86 at gmail.com
Sat Mar 21 12:31:39 UTC 2015
Hi guys,
My name is Adriano and I'm studyind economincs.
Actually I'm finishing my studies and I'm writing the thesis. Topic of my
thesis is the open source and his experiences, including the open hardware.
So I wanted to ask yousome questions:
What do you believe about the development of open hardware in the present
and in the future, and the benefits that it can bring to companies, even at
levels of strategy.
Thank you so much your precious attention
With Best Regards
2015-03-21 7:16 GMT+01:00 Nancy Ouyang <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com>:
> Matt, you're absolutely right, I apologize for concluding rms was acting
> like a jerk and calling him a crank, and agree it was very immature of me.
> I guess I stated the situation leading up my emails, not intending it as an
> excuse of my verbal abuse of rms, but rather because I was musing out loud
> that humans are fundamentally emotional and moody creatures, and wondering
> how to build systems that are tolerant of that (analogy: creating vents for
> steam instead of ignoring that steam exists or programming machines to
> never create it).
>
> I care a lot about not confusing people. This is why I approve of the term
> "open source hardware" and maybe "libre/free hardware *designs"* but not
> "free hardware" by itself.
>
> I am not referring to the licenses at all; I agree that free and open
> licenses have more in common than in difference.
>
> In any case, rms seems to have brushed me off with the generic "oss is not
> free software" response via email. Perhaps I can find time to track him
> down in person some other day, although various CSAIL friends seem to keep
> trying to dissuade me from this. In the meantime, I'll write my article.
>
> I must disagree that it's always "better to be agreeable and
> constructive". Constructive, yes. Agreeable? Depends on the circumstance.
> http://www.ted.com/talks/margaret_heffernan_dare_to_disagree
> http://www.ted.com/talks/linda_hill_how_to_manage_for_collective_creativity
> (creative abrasion)
>
> ~~~
> narwhaledu.com, educational robots
> <http://gfycat.com/ExcitableLeanAkitainu> [[<(._.)>]] my personal blog
> <http://www.orangenarwhals.com>, orangenarwhals
> Researcher, Postmodern Robotics Group, MIT Electronics Research Society
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Jeffrey Warren <jeff at publiclab.org>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150321/099e9ab7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list