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

[lkcl .]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>