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. ]]] > https://www.wired.com/story/22-year-old-builds-chips-parents-garage/ He has made a chip with 1400 transistors. I think that making a processor capable of running GNU/Linux like the 15-year-old processor in my T400s will take at least another decade, and probably two or three. I'm sure people will get there someday. But RYF's policies should be designed for the next few years, not for long-term policies. We can't push long-term policies, we can only encourage them. -- 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. ]]] > Well, you said that free hardware designs are necessary in a "distant > future", and I strongly disagree with that. I said something that was too brief, and wasn't clear. So you misunderstood it. > > Free hardware designs are desirable, and may be necessary in a > > possible distant future, but not very soon. I said it that way because I had already explained the point and thought a brief reference to it would be clear enough in this context. I will now restate that point in full. Someday we may be able to take the stand that we reject all hardware made from nonfree designs, and urge everyone else to do likewise. That is not feasible today. To be ready to reject all nonfree hardware designs, we need to have free-design hardware for a wide range of uses that is easy to obtain. Imagine if we had said, in 1990, "We reject all nonfree software in our installed system." Having no free kernel, we would have had to shut down our computers. It was _too early_ then to take that stand. We took it later, when the software situation had advanced far enough that it was feasible. The hardware situation today is comparable to that. Some day, I hope, it will be feasible to take that stand. But we will to state the range to which the stand applies. For instance, I have some dimmable LED bulbs. They have some nontrivial circuit. I have various DC power adapters. They have nontrivial circuits. I have digital clocks. I have a microwave oven. I have telephones to use with my landline. Such products are not available with free designs, or even with nonfree top-level schematics. Would you suggest we all stop using them until they do? -- 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. ]]] > If you want companies to care about freedom, you've got to start with > hardware. I don't agree. I say this, because hardware really is no different than > software. The differences are tremendously important in practice. https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html explains this. If we take "really" to mean "at the heart", your statement becomes somewhat true. But that meaning doesn't lead to the practical consequences you argue for. > However, freedom comes at different levels. I would say yes, you do > have some freedoms even if the schematics are available but non-free. I agree that having nonfree schematics provides benefits. For instance, it helps people develop free replacement software, which is very important. Likewise, having nonfree source code for a program provides benefits. But when it comes to defining free software, or free hardware, we must insist on all the freedoms that in principle software or hardware must respect. We must not start talking about anything less as "free". > Well, you said that free hardware designs are necessary in a "distant > future", and I strongly disagree with that. I think we should be > pushing for it *now*. We already have efforts underway, so why stop? I make a distinction between "encouraging" and "pushing". "Encouraging" is painless, it just takes effort. "Pushing" is so hard that we'd have to sacrifice something else. We encourage free hardware design effort in https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html. We can encourage it elsewhere -- any suggestions? However, adding additional hardware criteria to RYF would be pushing -- it would remove important products from the list. In my view, that change would be self-defeating. > Why invent limitations for yourself? I say we should apply ourselves > instead, and that's exactly what some of us are doing. It's not a "limitation", it's focus. In order for a certification program to do good, it needs to be able to certify a substantial number of products that will satisfy customers' needs. Right now, RYF does. If we added free hardware criteria, it wouldn't do that any more. -- 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. ]]] > If you want companies to care about freedom, you've got to start with > hardware. I don't agree. I say this, because hardware really is no different than > software. The differences are tremendously important in practice. https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html explains this. If we take "really" to mean "at the heart", your statement becomes somewhat true. But that meaning doesn't lead to the practical consequences you argue for. -- 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
> For me it is not clear. Hardware is not usually "licensed", we cannot find common copyrights for hardware. -- Louis It's very often licensed, just proprietary in majority and the copyrighted material leaked by 3rd party who strip the copyright notice. Maybe that explains your experience with it? FWIW the files used to build the hardware fit the definition of software with gerber files and schematics being compared to visual programming similar to how enso (programming language) works and verilog being a fork of C programming so from my point of view it's just an extension of software freedom that affects hardware freedom. > For me it is not clear. Hardware is not usually "licensed", we cannot find common copyrights for hardware. -- Louis The terms is defined by FSF i just follow it.. Personally in EU politics is use "libre software" or "technoliberalism" to make the clear destinction from socialism to those who don't understand free as in freedom i nstead of gratis. On 1/26/22 14:17, Jean Louis wrote: * Thomas Lord [2022-01-25 22:53]: A few thoughts on Leah's definition of "free hardware": + The gist is clear "Essentially, "free hardware" means that you can make the hardware yourself." For me it is not clear. Hardware is not usually "licensed", we cannot find common copyrights for hardware. Telling "free hardware" reminds me only of promotional campaigns in computer shops or projects with free laptops for children. It does not bring the word "free" clearly in the context of freedom, it rather reminds of pricings and charges. This may change over the time and it depends of public relations, propaganda and marketing. My advise is to choose words wisely, as that will influence all of the future of free hardware as you mean it. This article pinpoints the problem: Free Hardware and Free Hardware Designs - GNU Project - Free Software Fo undation https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.en.html Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns In support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/ -- 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
On 1/25/22 12:48, Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss wrote: On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 23:16:36 -0500 Richard Stallman 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
Help Chile write free software values, privacy, and digital sovereignty into their constitution
Dear libreplanet, Only a few precious days left, but I just saw the following post by Drew DeVault titled "Help Chile write free software values, privacy, and digital sovereignty into their constitution": https://drewdevault.com/2022/01/19/Help-Chile-promote-digital-freedoms.html Relevant quotes from the post: -- "The Chilean people voted overwhelmingly in favor (80% with a 50% turnout) of rewriting the constitution, a constitutional convention has been assembled, and a call has been made for the Chilean people to re-define their country’s values. One of the answers to this call arrived in my inbox courtesy of Felix Freeman, a Chilean hacker and activist for free software, free culture, and free knowledge, who asked me to signal boost 'Propuestas constitucionales para Chile en la era de la información', three proposals to establish the following principles in the foundations of Chilean law: Access to knowledge Technological and digital sovereignty Internet privacy Each of these proposals needs 15,000 Chilean signatures to be proposed at the constitutional convention ... Opportunities like this one are vanishingly rare, and need to be taken advantage of before they’re gone. The call for signatures ends on February 1st — act fast!" -- Is the FSF aware of initiatives like this? Even if the proposals don't exactly use 100% of the FSF's language, I agree with the linked post that this is an exceedingly rare opportunity to institutionalise at least some free software values on a national level, and is worth supporting. ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware
> If you can come up with a good definition of "free hardware", I might
join in using it. -- RMS
I don't see too many differences in comparison to free software so i
would use:
The Free Hardware is hardware that respects four essential freedoms:
- Freedom 0: The freedom the use the hardware for any purpose
- Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the hardware works and change it
to make it do what you wish (access to all relevant files used to build
the hardware such as, but not limited to schematics, gerber files,
verilog, bios source code, bootloader source code and firmware source
code is precondition for this)
- Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute and make copies so that you can
help your neighbour.
- Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the hardware, release your
improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that
the whole community benefits.
> I now understand that when you speak of "the schematics" of a
computer, you mean diagrams of _some_ of the circuits in it: the ones at
board level. If I understand you right, this does not include the
circuits inside the chips; they are not published. -- RMS
I wouldn't consider it being a Fully Free Hardware if the relevant files
for the chips such as verilog are not included with the design, but i
would argue that if the developer provides just the schematics and
gerber files that it's already a major help for the Free Hardware in
general as it allows us to skip on research and improve the design.
> This is why I decided to formulate my ideas in terms of "free
hardware designs". The design of the board in the
PowerProgressCommunity notebook is published, it seems; depending on the
license it carries, it may be free. If so, we can say that that design
is a free hardware design. Meanwhile, the design of the processor chip
in that product is not free.
The PowerProgressCommunity notebook is using POWER9 CPU which is using
apache and creative commons license
[https://github.com/openpower-cores][https://github.com/antonblanchard/microwatt][https://github.com/open-power]
so anyone can study how it works and fabricate the CPU.
> But that future is distant. It would be self-defeating to reject all
computers with anything made from a nonfree hardware design. We'd have
to reject all computers. What good would that be? -- RMS
> That is a very harsh accusation. I don't believe it -- the FSF does
not do sabotage. I hope this is some sort of misunderstanding. -- RMS
We already have hardware freedom in lot of areas:
- PowerProgressCommunity ("PPC") and people with less resources such as
SLIMBOOK.
- Relativty https://github.com/relativty/Relativty
- Open Smartwatch https://github.com/Open-Smartwatch
- Majority of all 3D printers, CNC machines
- 3D pen https://github.com/3dsimo/3dsimo_kit
- Firearms, rocket launchers and various bombs https://defcad.com/
- Aircrafts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MakerPlane
- Drones
https://www.thingiverse.com/search?q=drone=615bb68759e69c6=things=relevant
- Glucometers https://github.com/nebulabio/gluco
- Robotic arms https://hackaday.io/project/12989-thor
- and all of the things on thingiverse https://www.thingiverse.com/
ranging from cool props (https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:644933),
planters (https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:903411), fashion items
(https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1819242), musical instruments
(https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2755765)
And we with exception of openmoko (R.I.P.) and with the greatest respect
we would have free hardware smartphones if you and FSF didn't enable
Purism and PINE64 to profit off of your endorsements, advertise
themselves as "Free and Open-Source" on proprietary hardware and get
away with lieing about releasing the hardware files (alleged purism,
https://git.dotya.ml/kreyren/kreyren/issues/13) or maintain a
proprietary model on GPLv3-compatible CPU like raptorcs is doing with
Talos II next to the RYF certification.
... and possibly Free Hardware tablets as companies such as jingpad
(https://en.jingos.com) can afford having a proprietary model with the
support of "free software influencers" who praise it for being free just
because it uses proprietary fork of linux
[https://youtube.076.ne.jp/watch?v=P-14-qlKyHA]
[https://youtube.076.ne.jp/watch?v=LIKfXbwzfXE] which i doubt would be
possible if FSF adapted hardware freedom.
So from my point of view FSF is an authority on user freedom and these
actions sabotage the free hardware.
> A gerber file alone is not adequate as source code for a circuit; it
is more like compiled code. -- RMS
In terms of PCB design the gerber files are the source code and the
fabricated PCBs are comparable to compiled code, i don't find it sane to
compare gerber files to anything beyond PCB design as it's like saying
"Makefile is like compiled code" to me.
Goting further with the comparisons:
- Verilog files are the source code for manufacturing the CPUs
-
Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware
* Thomas Lord [2022-01-25 22:53]: > A few thoughts on Leah's definition of "free hardware": > > + The gist is clear > > "Essentially, "free hardware" means that you can make >the hardware yourself." For me it is not clear. Hardware is not usually "licensed", we cannot find common copyrights for hardware. Telling "free hardware" reminds me only of promotional campaigns in computer shops or projects with free laptops for children. It does not bring the word "free" clearly in the context of freedom, it rather reminds of pricings and charges. This may change over the time and it depends of public relations, propaganda and marketing. My advise is to choose words wisely, as that will influence all of the future of free hardware as you mean it. This article pinpoints the problem: Free Hardware and Free Hardware Designs - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.en.html 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
On 26/01/2022 03:39, 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. ]]] > 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 A gerber file alone is not adequate as source code for a circuit; it is more like compiled code. But assuming that the "design files" are the source code, then I think this is a coherent definition of "free hardware". I agree that all hardware ought to be free in this sense, some day. https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html talks about this, and why it's too much to insist on for the short term. But many people say "free hardware" and they mean something very different, a much less stringent criterion. They mean "comes with the specs needed to write free software for it". I don't think that is enough to merit the term "free hardware". What can we call it? > (this last one is something that the FSF currently provides exceptions > for in RYF) I just modified https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html to better explain why we make this exception, why for the time being we must. Also how to keep it honest. Hi Richard This is great, thank you. Another advantage with free designs and making the tools available is that anyone can then learn the system with little or no barriers to doing so. It helps bridge the digital divide which is something that needs to be addrssed, doing so with freer hardware means people start on the right foot by understanding free software and freehardware in the freedom sense going forward. Would Arduino be an example, Anyone can copy the arduino chip / board design, or in fact make their own board and just use th chip. The IDE is also fre download and under gpl. I think the design is open source, Hence the official Arduino boards cost $20+ but I can pick up clones much cheaper from companies such as banggood in China. https://www.arduino.cc/ Paul -- -- Paul Sutton, Cert Cont Sci (Open) https://personaljournal.ca/paulsutton/ Pronoun : him/his/he OpenPGP : 4350 91C4 C8FB 681B 23A6 7944 8EA9 1B51 E27E 3D99 OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
