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

Tue Aug 23 18:50:10 UTC 2016

All - Let's make sure this discussion remains respectful.

I will moderate posts that become aggressive or disrespectful.

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:01 PM, lkcl . <luke.leighton at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>  you're right.... in the same way that the (slightly misunderstood
> benjamin franklin quote is misquoted but the misquote itself is great)
> phrase "those who compromise on liberty to attain a little security
> deserve neither liberty nor security" helps us to distinguish clearly
> the difference between "moral" and "pragmatic".
>
>  so by using the word "open" in the OHANDA description (and by
> association the phrase "open source" and, as you rightly say, the
> "pragmatic" approach), you're actually saying, "we're going to declare
> that the four freedoms are valuable... but we're actually LYING to you
> because we don't really believe in them, we believe instead in the
> concept of 'open' ".
>
>  it's a mixed message ... no, it's actually *worse* than declaring one
> or the other, because you're promising to be - as you say - "moral"
> but actually you're not!
>
>
> > Things got started with "free" because those guys believed it was morally
> > wrong for software to be non-free.
>
>  correct... but i've come to understand that it's much more than that:
> there's a genuine business model behind "libre" which i only really
> fully appreciated when i heard how chris from thinkpenguin sells
> hardware that *just works*.  it works (even with windows devices)
> because he's researched it, and gone to the trouble (in the case of
> the AR9271 chipset) of taking *TWO YEARS* to walk qualcomm through the
> process of releasing the WIFI firmware under libre-compatible
> licenses.
>
>
> > 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.
>
>  yeahhh i do get it - i understand where it comes from... it's just a
> fundamental denial / lack of recognition of where the problem really
> lies.  it's why i'm using the "hurts your wallet" angle instead.
> "open" costs people money, long-term, basically.
>
>
> > Personally, I'm in the "open" camp because I don't think of it as a moral
> > issue. I just want to solve problems.
>
>  sure.  so.  how's that working out?  are you solving the problems
> associated with proprietary firmware not being compatible with drivers
> after an upgrade?  are you solving the problems of proprietary drivers
> not being updated to be compatible with recent OSes because the
> manufacturers CAN'T BE BOTHERED so people have to THROW AWAY perfectly
> peripherals?  and have you had customers ask yet, "can you sell me
> something that doesn't have an Intel NSA backdoor in it please?"
>
>  and how's it working out for qualcomm that it's been noticed that
> NINE HUNDRED MILLION android devices are basically land-fill, now?
> google "qualcomm security 900 million vulnerable devices" for details.
>
>  the number of people who misunderstand the real benefits of "libre"
> is immense.  like you they *genuinely* believe it is purely a "moral"
> issue, that it's not really important to take a "moral" stand when it
> comes to hardware, thus it's okay for there to be DRM at the hardware
> level with RSA key-signing on bootloaders...
>
>  have you seen the consequences of the fuckups made by the FCC
> recently?  they *IGNORED* everybody telling them, "for god's sake
> don't require DRM locking on the firmware, corporations won't do that
> they'll just DRM-lock the entire OS" and the FCC went, "nahh naah,
> they won't do that, don't talk bollocks, ya jumped up little 'moral'
> fuckwits".
>
>  and guess what happened?  TP-Link and other companies instantly
> started DRM-locking the entire OS.  you buy a recent TP-Link router
> you *CANNOT* reflash it.
>
>
>  now the FCC didn't like that, but they're making the situation *even
> worse* by requiring that the WIFI firmware be DRM-locked... because by
> doing that there's *NO* chance you'll be able to get libre WIFI
> firmware (see DRM-locking below).
>
>  and you know what practical consequences that has?  it means you can
> kiss 802.11ac Mesh Networking goodbye.  why?  because the fuckwit WIFI
> manufacturers sell what *THEY* want to sell, they're moving things
> from the OS level into the WIFI chipset level to do Mesh Networking
> (where they can DRM lock it, just like the FCC has DEMANDED), and they
> can't be BOTHERED to implement Mesh Networking on your behalf... so
> you're fucked.
>
>  all the security stuff that you want to add on top of 802.11n and
> 802.11ac?  flat-out it.
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
>  too complex for me to go into / don't have any concise examples to
> cite / other.  sorry!
>
>
> > 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 hardware that's used in an insidious and subversive way to lock
> the software, preventing and prohibiting people from achieving the
> four freedoms in an absolutely fundamental way that is impossible if
> it were just software.
>
>  if it were just software, there would at least be a chance to do
> reverse-engineeering, thus (aside from pissing everybody off) you can
> achieve the four freedoms after some considerable time and effort.
> but if it's DRM-locked hardware, even carrying out the
> reverse-engineering is a total waste of time.
>
>  there's a *massive* difference.
>
> l.
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>

-- 
Cheers,
Alicia Gibb
CEO, Lunchbox Electronics <http://www.lunchboxelectronics.com/>
Executive Director, Open Source Hardware Association <http://www.oshwa.org/>
Director, Blow Things Up Lab <http://www.btulab.com/>
Author, Building Open Source Hardware
<https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13220>

Please note: I tend to check my email once a day during the hours of 9-5
and refrain from checking it outside of work hours and weekends. Thank you
for your patience.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20160823/0218bd5f/attachment.html>