<div dir="ltr">Hello,<div><br></div><div>I see 'open' to be more of an issue of adoption - companies may feel more comfortable adopting designs that have a more BSD/MIT software license. More adoption, because the license allows for more flexible use. This allows companies to protect their intellectual property. (Intellectual property = money in the eyes of business)</div><div><br></div><div>I see GNU software 'free' as in the design stays free, even when modified. Because of the strict nature of the license, companies are wary of entering in to an agreement where they might have to give away their secret sauce - or even patented intellectual property. </div><div><br></div><div>Patents are worth money. Rendering a patent useless for the sake of 'free' is like a company throwing away a suitcase full of money, without attempting to protect it. I could see why bean counters and lawyers would dislike 'free' over 'open'.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>-Roy</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Paul Bristow <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paul@panglosslabs.org" target="_blank">paul@panglosslabs.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 23 Aug 2016, at 20:01, lkcl . <<a href="mailto:luke.leighton@gmail.com">luke.leighton@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Matt Maier <<a href="mailto:blueback09@gmail.com">blueback09@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> The way I understand it, "free/libre" is a moral position while "open" is a<br>
>> pragmatic position.<br>
<br>
</span>Disagree. In the hardware world, open source hardware simply means that the plans are available for you to replicate. What I really like about the OSHWA definition is that that explicitly includes for commercial purposes, just like the GNU licenses.<br>
<br>
Where The "libre" word fails, is that it doesn't explain what it does. I understand what you are trying to achieve, but most people won't even try, whereas Open Source Hardware does what it says on the tin i.e. The design files for the hardware are available for use by you. It's simply better marketing, reminding me of the saying "You can have the best idea in the world, but if you can't convince anyone it's worthless".<br>
<br>
Even though my preference for DRM issues is to fall on the libre side, it's a complexity we don't need when sharing designs for wooden raised beds, tables, 3D printable objects or even 4 axis motion systems. In terms of open source hardware, 99% does not even include electronics, and those that do - like 3D printers, tend to have the electronics as an exchangeable module. I tend to think of the hardware design documents as being equivalent to the source code of a binary, albeit with a less automatable (for now) compiler<br>
<br>
My approach is indeed a moral one. By ensuring that open source hardware includes modularity, clear documentation and the explicit permission to create a business with the design, we can re-use parts far more easily, taking us a long way towards an open source circular economy. This helps drastically reduce resource use which we seriously need to do from an environmental perspective if we want our civilisation to survive and hopefully not need Marcin's excellent civilisation starter kit "in anger". Pragmatic, yes. Do I want the Libre movement to continue - absolutely - to combat DRM lock-in where it could happen. But we are not all doing open source / libre hardware for the same reasons.<br>
<br>
Personally I would consider it immoral to design libre hardware that generated unrecyclable waste, yet it is clearly possible. Should I have the right to insist that every libre hardware design may only be used for 100% clean ecological functions? I would say yes, but I doubt that everyone would agree.<br>
<br>
Similarly, we can imagine a libre hardware or an open source hardware design for weapons. Where do we draw the line? Its why I think that we should define what the license / certification does and not what it doesn't.<br>
<br>
Having said that, I can't see any reason why you can't have something that is both OSHWA certified and Libre hardware compliant. Logically, libre hardware should be a useful additional constraint on open source hardware.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@lists.oshwa.org">discuss@lists.oshwa.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.oshwa.org/<wbr>listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>