There are a small number of people that command respect in the IT industry and as far as I know, Richard and Theo are two such people. I am sure that if people like you began to endorse open source hardware more people would move in that direction. I remember reading a quote from Sun about modern hardware becoming more like software all the time which was why they decided to release a processor as open source. Even if this were not the case I find it surprising to read you distinguish what should and should not be classed as free (if one can kick it there is no need for it to be free). What does it matter if a product is hardware or software as to my mind the same principles apply in both cases. What about the software that runs on a given piece of hardware such as BIOS, etc.
A. On 01/01/2008, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm curious how you can recomend an OS, like gNewSense that only runs > on > non-free hardware, that > has required non-free software to be used in it's creation? > > How do you do these things? Perhaps I do them the same way. > > The term "non-free hardware" is misleading, because the issues that > divide free software from non-free software do not apply to hardware. > There are no copiers for hardware and it has no source code. > > As for Intels use of non-ree software, I am sorry for them, and I hope > that someday they will be able to move to free software.
