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

Marcin Jakubowski marcin at opensourceecology.org
Mon Aug 22 18:16:48 UTC 2016


Thanks, good points of clarification.
Marcin

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:59 PM, lkcl . <luke.leighton at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e355ae0a/attachment.html>


More information about the discuss mailing list