[Discuss] EOMA68 Libre Hardware Standard and Libre Software project, currently crowd-funding (deadline expires 26th aug 2016)

[lkcl .]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Antoine C.
<smallwindturbineproj.contactor at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi l.
>
> Le 20/08/2016 00:08, lkcl . a écrit :
>> the use of the word "open"
> [Only if the following is relevant]
>
> It might give you some information about the term "open" for hardware.
>
> Without trolling, it seems the choice of the term "open" has been
> preferred, in part because it seemed difficult to consider legally
> something made with atoms, as free or libre, as it can be for software,
> or for other things who are under rights of authorship.

  yehhh.... i know... but here's the thing: if only the word "open"
had been used it would be fine, but using the words "open source" is
an *instant* red flag indicating to others that are familiar with the
phrase that the OSHWA is a subversion and infiltration group onto
Libre Hardware.

>  In that meaning, it may be
> preferable to keep the term "open" until we find a way to get a real
> compliant way to get a real FLOS canvas for hardware.

 i did reverse-engineering of NT Domains for Samba TNG 20 years ago.
people did not understand why i even *ran* windows nt, but it was
impossible to reverse-engineer it without doing so.

 so i understand the concept of "appearing to compromise" in order to
reach a goal.

 but if you've *registered a domain name* and *registered a trademark*
and set up an entire standard that is based around a compromise, you
can't really ever go back from that - it's too late.

 now, if you'd registered those domains and set up a *redirect* page,
that would be a totally different matter.

l.