<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Javier Serrano <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Javier.Serrano@cern.ch" target="_blank">Javier.Serrano@cern.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div class="im">On 11/19/2013 11:09 PM, Matt Maier wrote:<br>> The "open source" community, in the sense that it excludes the "free"<br>> community, does not have a problem with licensing their work to allow<br>
> others to do anything they want with it. That's actually the whole<br>> point. The "free" community, on the other hand, is defined by the fact<br>> that they place restrictions on what other people can do with their<br>
> work...for moral reasons.<br><br></div>From the GPL preamble:<br><br>"To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you<br>these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have<br>
certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if<br>you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others."<br><br>This sounds reasonable to me, and I of course respect anybody who disagrees.<br>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>The point wasn't that there's anything wrong with the priorities of "free"; the point was that "free" has different priorities from "open source." As Richard Stallman said:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"..<em>.While a free program by any other name would give you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all on teaching people to value freedom...We disagree with the open source camp on the basic goals and values...A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, “I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?” This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss...The free software activist will say, “Your program is very attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement.” If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it." </em><a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div class="im"><br>> I think you're viewing this situation through a "free" lens but<br>> mistakenly calling it "open source." The values of the "free" movement<br>> aren't all that popular in the software world, and they are even less<br>
> popular in the hardware world, since it's so much harder to do anything<br>> for free.<br><br></div>I can only speak for our case at CERN BE-CO-HT. We were more inspired by<br>Free Software than by Open Source Software. The only reason we don't<br>
call our stuff "Free Hardware" is that it's even more misleading than<br>"Free Software". The "free" in "Free Software" is of course about<br>freedom (not price), a subject which is not the main focus in Open<br>
Source. Both stands are respectable, of course, and we feel at ease in<br>both families, but one thing is for sure: the choice of the word "free"<br>has caused endless confusion. Even if you are aware of what the "free"<br>
in Free Software means, as I am sure you are, it's too damn easy to fall<br>into the trap of talking about "free beer" when criticizing Free<br>Software, as you just did in the preceding paragraph.<br><br>Cheers,<br>
<br>Javier</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>I must not have built up to that point well enough. The emphasis wasn't on the word "free" it was on the VALUES of the "free" movement. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Implicit in Stallman's argument (quoted above) is that a "free as in speech" program, once created, can be implemented by anyone at little-to-no cost. Giving away the IP rights to code dramatically reduces the "beer" costs for everyone else. Sure, implementing software on a large scale has inherent costs, but those are HARDWARE costs. People, servers, electricity, etc. Individuals can implement software at "free as in beer" prices as long as they can get the IP rights "free as in speech." And the goal of the "free" movement is to spread the ideals of freedom, so reaching more people is the point. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>But hardware project costs do not go away when a creator gives away their IP under a "free as in speech" license. Each and every individual who wants to distribute and/or use the hardware has to incur the same costs; every time. A creator might be able to invent an awesome machine, and release it "free as in speech," but merely testing it to see if it works will cost everyone the same amount, including the original creator. So hardware is a much less attractive avenue for spreading "free" values because it doesn't matter as much if someone gets the IP rights...they still have to implement the thing. If someone is "free" to do something, but can't afford to, they don't consider the freedom relevant.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So the values of the "free" movement mean even less in hardware than they do in software. Even if someone gets "free" hardware (plans) they can't debug them, let alone use them, in the physical world without costs that don't exist for software projects. So the pragmatic question "does it work" has much more relative importance. Committing resources is a risk, and more resources are involved in hardware projects.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That means "open source," which focuses on pragmatism rather than morality, has values that translate much better into hardware than "free." </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I hope this was a better explanation of what I meant.</div>
<div>-Matt</div></div>