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

Matt Maier blueback09 at gmail.com
Tue Aug 23 17:30:32 UTC 2016


The way I understand it, "free/libre" is a moral position while "open" is a
pragmatic position.

Things got started with "free" because those guys believed it was morally
wrong for software to be non-free. So they used copyright to force
downstream users to preserve the freedom of subsequent downstream users,
ensuring that what was created "free/libre" had to stay "free/libre."

A lot of people liked the principle, but couldn't integrate it into
business because of the viral nature of copyleft. So "open" splintered off
when people just wanted to collaborate on the best solutions to the
problems, rather than take a moral stand.

Personally, I'm in the "open" camp because I don't think of it as a moral
issue. I just want to solve problems.

There are a lot of ways in which hardware is more compatible with "open"
than "free/libre." For example, if you want to test some software, you can
just download it and run it. If you want to test some hardware, you have to
build it or have it shipped to you. So hardware is always going to need
money exchanging hands; it can't be practically separated from business.
Another example is that copyright applies to software, but it doesn't apply
to hardware. There just isn't a good legal mechanism for enforcing the
creator's intentions when a piece of hardware is out in the world. So you
can't take someone to court to make them obey your moral principles.

The example you've cited a couple times, of DRM locking, even seems like
it's really a software thing, not a hardware thing. It's software embedded
in hardware. That might just be me though. I think of "open source
hardware" as structures and mechanisms, but I recognize that a lot of
people think of it as electronics.

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:07 PM, lkcl . <luke.leighton at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Antoine C.
> <smallwindturbineproj.contactor at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Le 20/08/2016 00:08, lkcl . a écrit :
> >> so did not have time to find
> >> the OSHWA until someone very recently mentioned it
> > Hi l.,
> > just to know,
> > and if you mind
> > (feel free to not answer if you feel the following too boring),
> > may I ask you the two following additional questions,
> > which are, I'm afraid,
> > not technical about you great achievement (by the way: Bravo !):
> > 1) have you already heard of, got information about, the OHANDA project
> > [1][2] ?
>
>  now i have
>
> > 2) from your point of view, why the existence of OSHWA (and OHANDA)
> > projects took so long time to come to you ?
>
>  because i've been focussing on getting the job done, as opposed to
> either (a) finding people to *collaborate* on getting the job done or
> (b) advertising *that* i am focussed on getting the job done.
>
>  hardware design and component sourcing is so intense that i can't
> focus on both.  it's only from this crowdfunding campaign - where i've
> stopped all work on the hardware designs and focussed exclusively 100%
> on communications - that i've found (or had the opportunity to find)
> tons of like-minded and interested people.
>
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Hardware_and_Design_Alliance
>
>  aaargh, they took the four freedoms - even *say* it's "based on free
> software" - and then lost the golden opportunity to *call* it "Libre
> Hardware and Design Alliance".  if it qualifies as "Libre" they should
> *use* the word "Libre".  there's nothing in that definition 0 which
> permits hardware-level DRM locking, so there's no "lobster-trap" gate
> as there is when people use the word "open"....
>
>  i'm genuinely curious to know why people are avoiding the use of the
> word "Libre".
>
> l.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160823/14bd78fc/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the discuss mailing list