On 1/25/22 12:48, Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 23:16:36 -0500
Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.org> wrote:
If you explain in a few lines what issues you include in "hardware
freedom", I could see what attitude or attitudes I have towards those
issues. They may be quite different from each other.
Then let me be clear. By "free hardware" I mean that the following is
available under a free license:
* Gerber files for circuit boards
* Boardview / gerber / design files
* Verilog files for making your own versions of each chip
* Built-in firmwares on chips must also be free. E.g. bootroms
To me, this sounds like a definition for free designs for electronics
and/or digital computing devices, but not hardware in general.
For example, under this definition, what about a wooden chair? They
usually are not designed with Gerber files, Verilog files, and don't
have built-in firmware on chips (at least not yet until someone makes
them "smart", the thought of which I shudder at).
So would a wooden chair not count as "hardware" or not something the
people on this list care about? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm
just trying to clarify how broad you want your definition to apply. If
your definition is only about, for example, digital/electronics
hardware, that is fine. But I think the term "free hardware", or
variations thereof, would be too broad and misleading.
Again, I bring everyone's attention to what has already been done.
For example, the Open Source Hardware Association (OSHWA) has been very
active for many years, and have a widely used definition for open source
hardware here:
https://www.oshwa.org/definition/
OSHWA already has an open source hardware certification program, where
complete hardware designs must be released under a free (as in freedom)
license:
https://certification.oshwa.org
There is a long list of certified hardware.
And there is the DIN SPEC 3105 standard, which defines best practices
for publishing hardware documentation (schematics, design files,
manufacturing information, etc.) and how to certify them:
https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/wiki/DIN_SPEC_3105
For chips, there is the Free and Open Source Silicon Foundation:
https://www.fossi-foundation.org
And there's the Open Know-How specification that defines a common data
model for sharing hardware designs:
https://www.internetofproduction.org/open-know-how
Yes, I once again acknowledge that the initiatives above often use the
term "open source" which has important distinctions from "free" as in
freedom. However, A LOT of work has gone into these successful efforts,
and I believe it is worth learning about them, understanding their
successes and failures, and constructively engaging with them first
before starting a new project from scratch.
If nothing else, trying to understand and engage existing efforts will
better identify and define any remaining gaps/shortcomings that could be
overcome with a new project. For example, several messages in this
thread have mentioned definitions and certifications for "free hardware"
or "free hardware designs". They would benefit from a good understanding
of what's already out there so that effort is not duplicated, and work
together on things we can agree on.
Let's at least not re-invent any wheels.
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss