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

[lkcl .]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Marcin Jakubowski
<marcin at opensourceecology.org> wrote:
> 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.

 yeahyeah, i realise that :)

 ok, there's several things here.  i'm going to use some perspectives
that i've seen very commonly-used, they're rhetorical but are
deliberately "overdone" - not even in the way that shakespeare's play
about caesar does, with that extremely powerful speech, "friends,
romans, countrymen" because i'm also deliberately using sarcasm
instead of "praise" as was done in the play.  we analysed it at school
btw :)


 first is this:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html

 so if you use the word "open source", by corollary it's perfectly
okay in "open source hardware" to DRM-lock the bootloader, just like
Microsoft do with the Surface RT.  or, like hardkernel do with *EVERY
SINGLE ONE OF THEIR PRODUCTS*.

 ... but hardkernel's products are.... "open", aren't they?  you can
get the schematics, right?  you can replace the linux kernel, right?
you can run a new OS, right? and even the u-boot source is "open",
right?  but try replacing the bootloader and you can fuck right off as
far as they're concerned.  and that bootloader has a DRM-based
signature check in it, and it's an e-fuse that's been blown so there
is *literally* no way to get round that.

 ... but it's all _open_, right?  so why are you even complaining?  go
away you little free-tard, go sit in your corner and rant about how
"important" the word "libre" is.

see what i'm saying here?  by using the words "open source" you've
compromised on key strategic ethics in a way that you cannot go back
from.  you've said it's OKAY for people to DRM-lock the hardware.
once you've said that's okay, you can hardly change your mind, can
you!

 you've also said it's OKAY for Intel and AMD to sell NSA spying
back-door co-processors in all their products.

 ... does that help illustrate why it is such a serious mistake to
even use the phrase "open source hardware"?  by doing so you've sent a
clear and unequivocal message to people that it's OKAY - by accident
or otherwise - to blatantly control people through their hardware...
*DESPITE* the schematics and design files being publicly available!

 i could go on, find you some more examples, but Tivoisation, DRM and
RSA secret-key signing on bootloaders are really all the examples you
need.


second is the article in Wired Magazine, hmmm there are two, they're
both worth reading:
http://www.wired.com/tag/richard-stallman/

basically in these articles dr stallman outlines the complexities of
what's actually protected by copyright and what's not, in regards to
hardware.  the key is this:

 "In the US, copyright does not cover the functional aspects that the
design describes, but does cover decorative aspects."

it's not very well understood this difference between functional
aspects (the actual circuit diagram, the connections between ICs -
neither of which may be subject to copyright) and decorative aspects
(being more "creative", i assume) where "functional" can be directly
related to "mathematics" - to be honest i am learning about it as
well.

 bruce perens goes even further by advocating that all hardware
designs should be released as PUBLIC DOMAIN!  this in order to
recognise properly that there should *be* no copyright - or the
possibility of *confusion* that functional designs could be
copyrightED.  this is bruce peren's main fear, that *because* we start
putting hardware designs under Copyright licenses, Courts will
misunderstand and think that it's *POSSIBLE* to copyright functions
(and mathematics)... then we'd be in really deep shit.

 the problem with what bruce proposes is that the Berne Convention
exists: you *can't* relinquish Copyright in Europe - you can only
reassign it.  it doesn't matter how many times you state, "I Release
This As Public Domain" - courts (the law) simply does not recognise
that you made such a statement.


 anyway that second bit is a part-distraction, the first thing is
really really critical.

l.