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

[Marcin Jakubowski]

Luke,

Can you explain the Libre movement's position on why 'open source hardware'
is considered a subversion of free/libre principles? I got an email from
Dr. Stallman at one point stating that 'open source hardware' is an
impossibility, as hardware cannot have source code. In my view, the 'source
code for hardware' is the blueprints and all enabling information,
including computer code for hardware that uses software. I don't think it's
the intent of some open source people like myself to 'subvert' libre
principles.

Marcin

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:48 AM, lkcl . <luke.leighton at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
*Full Disclosure Agreement:* OSE works openly. All conversations in this
email are intended to be transparent and subject to sharing, with due
respect. OSE does not sign NDAs in order to promote collaboration. All of
our work is libre or open source. If you are discussing potential
development collaboration, your work must also be open source pursuant to
the Open Source Hardware Association definition
<http://www.oshwa.org/definition/>.

See Global Village Construction Set TED Talk
<http://www.ted.com/talks/marcin_jakubowski>. Sign up for our Design Sprints
<http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/OSE_Design_Sprint>. Subscribe as a True
Fan <http://opensourceecology.org/community/#truefans>. See Tsu
<https://www.tsu.co/OpenSourceEcology> or Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/OpenSourceEcology> for updates. Subscribe to
monthly update OSEmail <http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/OSEmail>. Donate
to our 501(c)3 <http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Other_donation_options>.

Marcin Jakubowski, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Open Source Ecology
http://opensourceecology.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20160822/3355a0ee/attachment.html>