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

[Mario Gómez]

> i'm genuinely curious to know why people are avoiding the use of the
word "Libre".

Hi! A native spanish speaker here.

I remember pretty well that originally the world "libre" was not used for
nothing because Stallman always explained "free as in freedom not as in
free beer". However not many people like to read clarifications so the
world "libre" (that in spanish means literally freee as in freedom) was
suggested to be used instead "free" even in documents written in english.

As you can see, in spanish we don't have that ambiguity because we have two
words "gratis" that means "free as in free beer" and "libre" that means
"free as in freedom". And the translations talking about "free/libre
software", since I remember, always used the word "libre" instead "gratis",
so we never had this kind of definition ambiguities in the first place.

In the world of the software development the legal framework that applies
in most parts of the world is the copyright legislation. The copyright
legislation grants exclusive explotation rights to the owner even if the
owner doesn't ask for a registration of their works. So, Stallman used this
legislation as a basis to write a license that guarantees certain freedoms
to the copyright licensee (or the final user).

In the world of the hardware development in most parts of the world you
don't have exclusive explotation rights for a device or "invention". You
can make an exact copy of a machine and no-one can prevent you to sell it,
modify it or change the way it works. In that sense many legislations
already give you the "freedoms" to make any changes that you want to the
hardware that you own. If you look at the hardware from this perspective
you'll notice that free/libre software licenses tried to bring to the
copyright world something that was a matter of fact in the hardware world.
Of course there are exceptions for example with firearms or RF devices but
they are usually exceptions and not the rule.

If you want to have a exclusive right of a "hardware thing" you must
register your device as a "novel" invention throught a "patent". And
depending on the local legislation of a country you cannot patent certain
things.

Currently to "protect" hardware designs what people usually do is: Patent
something or if is not patentable they use the figure commercial trade
secrets deliverately hidding key information about how certain things are
fabricated or done. But again, nothing prevents you of doing
reverse-engineering to make a similar product. People also combines
"artistic decorations" and trademarks within their products so they can
apply for copyright protections in case someone makes a 1:1 clone of their
products.

For me (and this is my personal opinion) when you talk about "libre
hardware" (or hardware libre in spanish syntax) it could mean two things: *Free
of patents* (an statement hard to make considering the high number of
frivolous patents out there) or *Free of trade secrets* (no part of the
construction process is hidden to the owner, another statement hard to
make... unless you are able to show me the litography and design documents
used for every chip included in your "libre device").

I think that both statemets are un-realistic and are not possible to
replicate with the same meaning in the hardware world. I'm not going to
copy the Open Source Hardware definition here, but is clear that what we
pretend is the devices under this "philosophy" are well documented, modular
and replicable so anyone with technical expertice could replicate/modify
them more easily and do with them whatever they want.

In the software world if you modify a software without authorization you'll
could face penal prosecution in some jurisdictions just for doing the
modifications. In the hardware world, if you modify a hardware that you own
the worst thing that could happen is that you can void your guarantee. Of
course, if someone is harmed by your modifications you can also face legal
consecuences, but this consecuences are not directly derived from a
legislation that prevents you doing that, but for the direct effects of
whatever you did wrong.

In other words... The "libertad" (freedom) that you are seeking for the
Open Source Hardware is already there and protected by many legislations
around the world so for me the world "libre" just generates confusion and
unnecesary flamewars.

Regards,
Mario.



On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:07 AM, 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"....
>
>
>
> 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/20160824/3c5c07f4/attachment.html>