Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > In fact, access to schematics, boardviews, datasheets and any other > documentation is *critical* to software freedom. I didn't realize that circuit diagrams were important for developing free replacement code -- I expected that documentation would take care of that job, or else reverse engineering of nonfree software. So you've convinced me on this point. However, it would be confusing to use the term "free hardware" to mean that the hardware comes with documentation. What if it comes with a schematic which has no license and therefore is not free? Is that "free hardware"? The problem is that, different purposes lead to different ideas of what "free" should concretely mean. When you say "schematics", which ones do you mean? For boards? For the inside of chips? > > Free hardware designs are desirable, and may be necessary in a > > possible distant future, but not very soon. > On the contrary, free hardware is possible *now*. > See: RISCV and SiFive. It's not contrary. You changed to a different question. That statement of yours may be true (depending on what one means by "free hardware"); what I said is also true. You're pushing for hyperbroad generalizations, while I am making careful distinctions. -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org) ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > Your dismissive attitude about hardware freedom is indeed damaging, Do I have a "dismissive attitude" towards "hardware freedom? Do I have any one single attitude towards that range of issues? I can't tell. I don't know what range of issues you include in that term, so I don't know what I would think of it. All I can say is that I agree it is good you got the info needed for supporting the T400s (or any other computer model) with free software -- and I see that as part of the Free Software Movement. 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. > You outright reject the term "free hardware" but the free hardware > movement already exists. I'm sure their hearts are in the right place, but since "free hardware" (or "open source hardware") is not well defined, I'd need to know what views that stands for before I could agree or disagree (or partly agree and partly disagree). It's possible you and I could agree on a set of goals, but I might disagree with using the term "free hardware" for them. Perhaps we could agree on some other name. > Stop seeing criticism as a threat. Listen to people, they want to > help! That's disrespect and emotional bullying, You can't convince me of anything that way. The way you might be able to do it is by treating me with respect. I thought carefully about various issues related to hardware to work out the ideas that I wrote in /philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html. Perhaps a part is mistaken, obsolete, or can be improved on. That's why I pay attention to the issues and arguments people bring up here. But I'm not going to change my views on the issue because someone is adamant, or because of emotional pressure. I've stood up to lots of that. -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org) ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware
> There is the Open Source Hardware Association which maintains the definition of Open Source Hardware here which enshrines the four freedoms for free software into hardware designs: I am not sure whether i trust OSHW with freedom as they seem to be leaning towards non-free, but from what i see that their values are aligned with Free Software movement so maybe they could be considered to provide an expert opinion. If RMS or FSF recognizes that GPLv3 is not sufficient for free hardware designs then i am willing to contact them about it. On 1/23/22 21:43, Pen-Yuan Hsing wrote: Quick note: There is the Open Source Hardware Association which maintains the definition of Open Source Hardware here which enshrines the four freedoms for free software into hardware designs: https://www.oshwa.org/definition/ Yes, I fully recognize and acknowledge that they use the term "open source" instead of "free" as in freedom, and this is a crucial distinction. But just wanted to let everyone know it exists, so that if someone wants to work on free hardware, they are aware of what has already been done so that we don't have to re-invent any wheels. There is also the recently-published standard DIN SPEC 3105: https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/wiki/DIN_SPEC_3105 Which defines more details for free hardware designs, including a recommended method of certifying them. There are also the Open Know-How (OKH) and OKH-EC standards on best practices for documenting and publishing free hardware designs: https://www.internetofproduction.org/open-know-how https://okh-ec.openknowhow.org I know some of the people behind these initiatives, in fact I think some of them consulted RMS when coming up with their definitions? Anyway, if there's serious interest in this from the free software community, I can help get you in touch with those people. On 1/22/22 07:25, Jacob Hrbek wrote: > I don't think the FSf has the skills or the staff resources to praise hardware with free designs. But I am not in charge of that now, so I have no more to say about it. -- RMS From my experience i don't feel like this process requires qualification and resources that FSF doesn't have as i think that the process should be: Does it provide gerber (file that contains the PCB design and is used for manufacturing), schematics (file providing wiring of the components) and models for the chasis (e.g. STL files to fabricate the chasis on e.g. 3D printer) under GPLv3-complying license? - Yes -> Certify it as Free Hardware Design - No -> Don't certify it Alternatively worst case scenario that takes the least amount of resources that i can think of would be to rename "Respects your Freedom" to "Respects Software Freedom" so that it's not taken as FSF endorsing proprietary hardware development. I also think that h-node is a good website that provides community-maintained rating for various hardware, so just adding either a new rating (currently the A-Platinum is highest and used for non-free hardware designs) or new database value for hardware freedom would be optimal in my opinion. > I will look at what the RepRap developers said, and what those other groups said. (They never told me, damn it!) I suspect they are looking for something that copyright simply cannot do. -- RMS Thanks for looking into it I appreciate it. On 1/22/22 05:41, Richard Stallman wrote: I don't think the FSf has the skills or the staff resources to praise hardware with free designs. But I am not in charge of that now, so I have no more to say about it. ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss -- Jacob Hrbek publickey - kreyren@rixotstudio.cz - 1677db82.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware
For clarification these are schematics of the PowerProgressCommunity
notebook:
https://gitlab.com/power-progress-community/oshw-powerpc-notebook/powerpc-laptop-mobo/-/blob/master/PDF_design/PPC_notebook_electrical_schematics_v0.6.pdf
meaning a document containing list of used components (anything on the
board e.g. resistors, capacitors, etc..) on how they are connected together.
I agree with Leah that schematics are critical for a development of free
software and i want to highlight that it's not limited only to bios
development as it affects the development of all free software as a
whole, but i also want to make the case for gerber files (PCB designs
used for fabricating) so that the hardware can be fabricated by the user
while granting them the permission and resources to change the hardware
as they wish.
For real-life example (price assumption in EUR assuming minimal wage in
czechia):
Lets assume that i got pinephone by PINE64 or Librem 5 by Purism which
are using proprietary components filled with (highly likely) spyware.
If i wanted to do something about it then:
1. If the design doesn't provide libre schematics (librem 5 does,
pinephone doesn't) then i would have to put the PCB under a microscope
and do a lot of probing and reverse-engineering to understand the design
and how it works (~700 EUR)
2. engineering to make my own design (400~3000 EUR)
3. Addressing the freedom issues to replace the components with more
appropriate options (25~800 EUR)
3. prototyping to make sure that my design works (200~5000+ EUR + cost
of fabricating the PCBs)
or
figure out my own design:
1. Research (2000~5000+ EUR)
2. Development (1000~2000+ EUR)
3. Prototyping (2000~5000+ EUR)
And in case of pinephone i can't even publish the improved design
without violating copyright.
And even though that both phones are advertised as Free and Open-Source
(librem 5 with FSF's endorsement) and there is a development of free
software.. I can't really use whatever i want on it i am forced to use
only software that the manufacturer wants me to run in a way that they
want with built-in spyware that i can't remove without going through the
process above which doesn't feel like freedom to me and also this whole
situation blocking further development of free software on handheld devices.
So if FSF took a stronger stand on Free Hardware Designs then I highly
doubt that both PINE64 and Purism would be able to afford using
proprietary hardware designs model which would allow everyone to skip on
majority of the development cost and contribute to address these freedom
issues in a way that is truly free while being able to develop a free
software for it without restrictions.
---
I want to clarify the use of proprietary chips:
I recognize that they are a freedom issue on their own, but i don't see
that being a freedom issue with free hardware designs as that problem is
self-correcting by (as said above) skipping on majority of the
development cost and being able to replace them with more appropriate
chip where we don't have this option if the schematics and gerber files
are not available under freedom respecting license.
That said I would be against certifying those designs as long as they
use non-free components.
---
> Would you like to set up s project to do this? You know more than
they know about this task, and maybe you have time to do it. -- RMS
I would be happy to contribute to RYF with certification process and
moderation of Free Hardware Designs and contributing to h-node if the
requested option for hardware freedom was added.
If you consider making a GPLv4 (as suggested by reprap developers in
provided forum post which reasoning i do support) to include the
critical clauses about Free Hardware Designs ("FHD") to reduce the
amount of proprietary forks of FHD (highlighted case of RepRap Mendel)
then i would also be happy to share my opinions and suggestions to it.
On 1/24/22 05:33, Richard Stallman wrote:
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> Does it provide gerber (file that contains the PCB design and is used
> for manufacturing), schematics (file providing wiring of the components)
> and models for the chasis (e.g. STL files to fabricate the chasis on
> e.g. 3D printer) under GPLv3-complying license?
> - Yes -> Certify it as Free Hardware Design
> - No -> Don't certify it
I understand those words partially. "Wiring of the components" --
what are "components" in this case? Does "components" mean "chips"?
If not, the hardware will, in most cases, still contain secret
circuitry--inside the chips.
The FSF group that handles much more than this
is short-handed and behind on its work. I couldn't
suggest that they start anything new.
Would you like to set up s project
Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware
On 24/01/2022 19:47, Matt Ivie wrote: On Mon, 2022-01-24 at 08:23 +, Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss wrote: Hi, I really can't hold my tongue any longer. On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 23:33:57 -0500 Richard Stallman wrote: RYF deserves its name. It checks for the freedom that users of the computer can take advantage of, today and in the near future. Having those circuit diagrams will not affect the freedom of customers who buy the hardware. In fact, access to schematics, boardviews, datasheets and any other documentation is *critical* to software freedom. Much of the work that goes into porting a single mainboard to coreboot requires knowledge of the hardware, and you actually need to read the schematics to get the code working on specific board configurations. Let's not also forget the Right to Repair movement, currently lead by Louis Rossman, which is *fighting* for the right to such documentation, because without it, nobody could understand their hardware. Maybe the RYF certification should have that include an ultimate level having the schematics and documentation available under a free license?Lower levels would allow systems that are missing these other pieces to still carry a certification if they are fully functioning using Free Software. Good idea, on another question, how do we avoid information conflicting between the fsf ryf information and the oshwa information, so that the information is consistent and does not cause confusion. Perhaps if Leah's idea is to work, the oshwa could take over the RYF list and be a one stop shop for all open hardware information, while the fsf just focuses on software, but the collaboration is close enough to be truly complementary. Paul -- Paul Sutton, Cert Cont Sci (Open) https://personaljournal.ca/paulsutton/ OpenPGP : 4350 91C4 C8FB 681B 23A6 7944 8EA9 1B51 E27E 3D99 Pronoun : him/his/he Fedi: @zl...@qoto.org https://joinmastodon.org/ OpenPGP_0x8EA91B51E27E3D99.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware
On Mon, 2022-01-24 at 08:23 +, Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss wrote: > Hi, > > I really can't hold my tongue any longer. > > On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 23:33:57 -0500 > Richard Stallman wrote: > > RYF deserves its name. It checks for the freedom that users of the > > computer can take advantage of, today and in the near future. > > Having those circuit diagrams will not affect the freedom of > > customers > > who buy the hardware. > > > > In fact, access to schematics, boardviews, datasheets and any other > documentation is *critical* to software freedom. > > Much of the work that goes into porting a single mainboard to > coreboot > requires knowledge of the hardware, and you actually need to read the > schematics to get the code working on specific board configurations. > > Let's not also forget the Right to Repair movement, currently lead by > Louis Rossman, which is *fighting* for the right to such > documentation, > because without it, nobody could understand their hardware. > Maybe the RYF certification should have that include an ultimate level having the schematics and documentation available under a free license?Lower levels would allow systems that are missing these other pieces to still carry a certification if they are fully functioning using Free Software. > > ___ > libreplanet-discuss mailing list > libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org > https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss -- "Under the sky, under the heavens there is but one family." --Bruce Lee signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware
Quick note: There is the Open Source Hardware Association which maintains the definition of Open Source Hardware here which enshrines the four freedoms for free software into hardware designs: https://www.oshwa.org/definition/ Yes, I fully recognize and acknowledge that they use the term "open source" instead of "free" as in freedom, and this is a crucial distinction. But just wanted to let everyone know it exists, so that if someone wants to work on free hardware, they are aware of what has already been done so that we don't have to re-invent any wheels. There is also the recently-published standard DIN SPEC 3105: https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/wiki/DIN_SPEC_3105 Which defines more details for free hardware designs, including a recommended method of certifying them. There are also the Open Know-How (OKH) and OKH-EC standards on best practices for documenting and publishing free hardware designs: https://www.internetofproduction.org/open-know-how https://okh-ec.openknowhow.org I know some of the people behind these initiatives, in fact I think some of them consulted RMS when coming up with their definitions? Anyway, if there's serious interest in this from the free software community, I can help get you in touch with those people. On 1/22/22 07:25, Jacob Hrbek wrote: > I don't think the FSf has the skills or the staff resources to praise hardware with free designs. But I am not in charge of that now, so I have no more to say about it. -- RMS From my experience i don't feel like this process requires qualification and resources that FSF doesn't have as i think that the process should be: Does it provide gerber (file that contains the PCB design and is used for manufacturing), schematics (file providing wiring of the components) and models for the chasis (e.g. STL files to fabricate the chasis on e.g. 3D printer) under GPLv3-complying license? - Yes -> Certify it as Free Hardware Design - No -> Don't certify it Alternatively worst case scenario that takes the least amount of resources that i can think of would be to rename "Respects your Freedom" to "Respects Software Freedom" so that it's not taken as FSF endorsing proprietary hardware development. I also think that h-node is a good website that provides community-maintained rating for various hardware, so just adding either a new rating (currently the A-Platinum is highest and used for non-free hardware designs) or new database value for hardware freedom would be optimal in my opinion. > I will look at what the RepRap developers said, and what those other groups said. (They never told me, damn it!) I suspect they are looking for something that copyright simply cannot do. -- RMS Thanks for looking into it I appreciate it. On 1/22/22 05:41, Richard Stallman wrote: I don't think the FSf has the skills or the staff resources to praise hardware with free designs. But I am not in charge of that now, so I have no more to say about it. ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: RE : Ideas to promote making and using free hardware designs (was Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware)
* Dr Andrew A. Adams [2022-01-24 08:48]: > > Arthur Torrey wrote: > > > I am a member of the Artisan's Asylum maker-space (formerly in > > Somerville, MA, temporarily shut down while moving to Allston) and > > would dearly love to be able to make the hardware that I can draw > > and design in LibreCAD (2D) or possibly FreeCAD, gCAD3D or some > > other Free Software 3D CAD package, but I have not been able to find > > any way to get from those packages to g-code that I can feed to our > > CNC machines. I cannot be sure if this may help: dxf2gcode download | SourceForge.net https://sourceforge.net/projects/dxf2gcode/ DXF to G-code Conversion Tutorial - Open Source Ecology https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/wiki/DXF_to_G-code_Conversion_Tutorial Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns In support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/ ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware
-- Snip-- All of this leads me to a conclusion: We should no longer call it the Free Software movement. No, we need a new term instead that combines both hardware and software. We need robust ideological leadership that is currently lacking from the FSF, when taking hardware into account. Richard, I think you should listen to the people telling you these things, because they are giving you good advice. They are not your enemy. People like me are just looking at the movement nowadays and dismayed because the FSF is largely ignoring the current realities. You outright reject the term "free hardware" but the free hardware movement already exists. Some refer to it as OSHW (open source hardware) but I myself call it the free hardware movement. There is good reason for people to be disillusioned with your FSF, and those reasons are expressed quite well by the original post in this thread. My only advice to you is this: Stop seeing criticism as a threat. Listen to people, they want to help! I think even the original poster on this thread probably has that same desire, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist (the OP would just disregard the FSF and move on, instead of trying to effect positive change). That's my two cents. Take it or leave it. I agree with Leah on this one, I am not a hardware or software engineer, however I would like to be able to buy hardware that I know respects free software, be able to install say Debian rather than Debian (non-free) so there are no hardware issues. I can download say Trisquel and it just works. I understand what Leah is suggesting enough to see the value of having specs, circuit diagrams etc. I have an old Oscilloscope here, the manual has full circuit diagram, my Old zx spectrum needed an external tape player and I am sure even that manual had a full circuit diagram. We need to step back and think of non IT technical users, who may be say brain surgeons, or chemists, they just want the software / hardware to work with their hardware and not have to spend time struggling to get things working as they need proprietary components. If they have all the datasheets available then at least the people with the right training can help repair these devices. I would much rather save money on usb wifi adapters and put that money to one side to buy a replacement laptop (at some point) that I know will just work. Also, users may want to upgrade the memory, and other hardware so this needs to be easy to do, or for others to do. Of course right to repair is gaining traction, but how much of that is also due to people being conscious of the environmental impact of thrown away hardware, that can be in a lot of cases easily fixed by swapping out a single component. People want to know is this phone, desktop laptop freedom (hardware and software) respecting or not before buying. I get the impression RISC V can / has potential to really change the current landscape around this too. Paul OpenPGP_0x8EA91B51E27E3D99.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware
On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 08:23:27 + Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss wrote: > In fact, access to schematics, boardviews, datasheets and any other > documentation is *critical* to software freedom. > > Much of the work that goes into porting a single mainboard to coreboot > requires knowledge of the hardware, and you actually need to read the > schematics to get the code working on specific board configurations. I have an example for you that is much closer to home. You use a ThinkPad T400S with Libreboot, right? I personally read Intel datasheets to understand how the Intel Flash Descriptor is laid out on your board, and a separate Intel datasheet defining the "Gigabit Ethernet Non-Volative Memory" region (GbE NVM) in order to write the "ich9gen" program. The ich9gen program generates an Intel Flash Descriptor and GbE NVM binary, from scratch. The descriptor is what Libreboot uses to disable the Intel ME on your machine; it's possible to boot your machine without one, but then you wouldn't have functional ethernet support using the onboard NIC in your machine. The GbE NVM region is defined by the Flash Descriptor. In a descriptorless mode, the Intel ME would be disabled on your machine, and this is how things were done in the old days. My work on ich9gen was specifically to have a flash descriptor, with functional GbE, while still disabling the ME. Info available here: https://libreboot.org/docs/install/ich9utils.html I semi-regularly also repair those mainboards, the ones used on libreboot ThinkPads, and for this I need knowledge of those boards. I'm able to repair issues with these boards by looking at schematics and boardview files, telling me where everything is. The most recent repair I did was to a fan circuit; a dodgy fan had shorted and caused a current surge, which shorted the fuse supplying current to the PWM circuitry regulating the fan. I knew of that fuse because of schematics. I was able to check for dead shorts and eliminate them, then replace the fuse and fan, and the result was a happy customer who could once again use their Libreboot machine (the machine had been sent in to me for repair). I sometimes get boards that won't turn on, and once again I'm able to repair them because I have the schematics. I can fo by process of elimination and isolate the cause of a fault, and fix it! Every board I repair causes an additional person in the world to be able to use Libreboot hardware. Much of the code in coreboot for these machines was also written literally by looking at schematics, in addition to datasheets. Intel provides very good documentation about some of their hardware, which the coreboot developers are able to use. Your dismissive attitude about hardware freedom is indeed damaging, if left unignored. People should be fighting for the right to hardware freedoms, especially schematics, boardviews and chip datasheets. Free hardware designs like RISCV are an essential part of our movement. Hardware and software do not exist in a vacuum. One cannot exist without the other. All of this leads me to a conclusion: We should no longer call it the Free Software movement. No, we need a new term instead that combines both hardware and software. We need robust ideological leadership that is currently lacking from the FSF, when taking hardware into account. Richard, I think you should listen to the people telling you these things, because they are giving you good advice. They are not your enemy. People like me are just looking at the movement nowadays and dismayed because the FSF is largely ignoring the current realities. You outright reject the term "free hardware" but the free hardware movement already exists. Some refer to it as OSHW (open source hardware) but I myself call it the free hardware movement. There is good reason for people to be disillusioned with your FSF, and those reasons are expressed quite well by the original post in this thread. My only advice to you is this: Stop seeing criticism as a threat. Listen to people, they want to help! I think even the original poster on this thread probably has that same desire, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist (the OP would just disregard the FSF and move on, instead of trying to effect positive change). That's my two cents. Take it or leave it. -- Think for yourself. Live free! pgplf3KVJaTYb.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware
Hi, I really can't hold my tongue any longer. On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 23:33:57 -0500 Richard Stallman wrote: > > RYF deserves its name. It checks for the freedom that users of the > computer can take advantage of, today and in the near future. > Having those circuit diagrams will not affect the freedom of customers > who buy the hardware. > In fact, access to schematics, boardviews, datasheets and any other documentation is *critical* to software freedom. Much of the work that goes into porting a single mainboard to coreboot requires knowledge of the hardware, and you actually need to read the schematics to get the code working on specific board configurations. Let's not also forget the Right to Repair movement, currently lead by Louis Rossman, which is *fighting* for the right to such documentation, because without it, nobody could understand their hardware. I encourage you to look at Louis Rossman's youtube channel to know more about Right to Repair: https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=Npd_xDuNi9k And his channel: https://vid.puffyan.us/channel/UCl2mFZoRqjw_ELax4Yisf6w You, Richard, tell people about my work on Libreboot and I'm very happy about that, but to say that schematics aren't necessary is ignorant. Without schematics, you cannot reliably implement coreboot support on a mainboard. Similarly, datasheets for each chip tells you how to write software that uses it. You seem to think that software exists in a perfect vacuum, and I'm telling you now: it does not. > > Free hardware designs are desirable, and may be necessary in a > possible distant future, but not very soon. > On the contrary, free hardware is possible *now*. See: RISCV and SiFive. There are still problems today, that can be solved in the future, but what you're saying suggests otherwise. -- Think for yourself. Live free! pgpGTJyifA8VH.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
