subject:"FSF continuously harms Free Hardware"


> Your reference to "Router Freedom" is not in the context of free
hardware design. It is in the context of Internet providers that will
give the Internet access to user under condition that only their
suggested router is used. That is quite different issue and it is not
relevant to free hardware designs. -- Louis

it may seem like it, but router freedom is important in the EU as the
ISP are forcing their own and proprietary routers and FSFE's campaign
enables a lot of people to use their own router which are often Free
Hardware e.g. in Czechia and partially thanks to FSFE's campaign we have
a lot of people doing self-ISP and providing internet to others, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Internet_service_provider and it
seems that majority of those WISP solutions are open-source but don't
quote me on it.

That said I don't believe that FSFE is currently in a position to do
more in terms of Free Hardware, but it seems that majority of it's
members
are very interested in it.

On 2/1/22 07:05, Jean Louis wrote:

Your reference to "Router Freedom" is not in the context of free
hardware design. It is in the context of Internet providers that will
give the Internet access to user under condition that only their
suggested router is used. That is quite different issue and it is not
relevant to free hardware designs.


--
Jacob Hrbek, In support of ukraine sovereignty #supportUkraine



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

* Thomas Lord  [2022-01-31 23:53]:
> Wait, I think we are onto something useful today:
> 
> Jean writes:
> 
>> - Freedom 0: The freedom the use the hardware
>>   for any purpose
> 
>> Did anybody prevent you to use hardware for any purpose?
> 
> YES!  Two examples:
> 
> In the music making world, it is distressingly common to sell
> hardware such as MIDI controllers (think: fancy game controllers
> but for music making) with capabilities that can not be accessed
> without difficult feats of reverse engineering, or else having
> to use proprietary software.  Often, the proprietary software
> further requires users to provide economically valuable
> personal information to the hardware making corporation.

I have tried, but I have not seen in the above paragraph how anybody
prevented you to use the MIDI controller for other purposes.

Which other purpose did you want to use it?

Was there any legal document preventing you to use it for other purpose?

> The space of "smart phones"[sic] and related devices, the situation
> is analogous and much, much more intense.  Customers buy hardware
> whose capacities they can not access at all without agreeing to
> use software that spies on them relentlessly (such spying often
> being the main product the software makers are selling to 3rd
> parties).

I cannot see how is hardware buyer prevented to use it for any purpose
one wants? 

You can take a stone and use it as knife, you just need good
imagination.

If your phone has some hidden features which don't work, it does not
mean you are not legally free to use those hidden features if you know
how.

What is important is if anybody is preventing user legally to use
hardware how they wish and want? Maybe I wish to use a keyboard as
mouse (living mouse) trap and manufacturer wanted me to sign agreement
that I am allowed to use keyboard only as keyboard, but not to catch
live mouses in my house.

The fact that keyboard maybe does not work or that it is not quite
suitable for mouse traps, does not mean that I am legally prevented to
use it how I wish and want.

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

* Jacob Hrbek  [2022-02-01 05:12]:
> While i argue that the GPLv3 is not an option for Hardware freedom,
> this is not the main issue as FSF still remains authority on User
> Freedom and have a major impact on Hardware Freedom as explained in
> previous e-mail.

I would say that FSF is prominent in promotion of free software and
users' freedom.

I would not say it is "authority on user freedom". As the FSF does not
have the powers or rights to give orders or make decisions on user
freedom. 

Maybe it is better to say that it is authority on fostering free
software or authority in fostering users' rights. Something like that.

> The only relevant organizations that i am aware of for this are:
> - OSHW who are seemingly not aligned with FSF values

BTW, it does not need to be. Many groups in the world gather together
with different purposes to other groups. You are free to join or
support both of them or none of them. 

> - FSFE who are already supporting hardware freedom with e.g.
> https://fsfe.org/activities/routers/routers.en.html, but lack the
> influence past FSF on the subject.

Your reference to "Router Freedom" is not in the context of free
hardware design. It is in the context of Internet providers that will
give the Internet access to user under condition that only their
suggested router is used. That is quite different issue and it is not
relevant to free hardware designs.


-- 
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

* Thomas Lord  [2022-02-01 07:05]:
> > 
> > I have tried, but I have not seen in the above paragraph how anybody
> > prevented you to use the MIDI controller for other purposes.
> > 
> 
> Example:  I have a small MIDI keyboard controller called
> the "Arturia Minilab mkII".
> 
> I can use its most basic capabilities with linux music
> production software like jack, or pipewire, and
> various libre synthesizers, drum machines, effects
> stacks, and Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) software
> like Ardour or QTractor (and many more).
> 
> But...  the device has non-volatile memory to configure its settings
> and to switch on-the-fly among configurations that I can not use
> without running proprietary software (therefore, I can't use them
> period).

So it is issue of proprietary software, not hardware. In that case
keep fostering free software. As would you resolve the problem that
you can put inside free software, you could eventually program it in
such a way that you get functions you want.

However, comparison of proprietary software in the context of freedom
zero to use it how you wish is not logical and in the context.

I suggest you read this page:

Freedom Zero
https://girtby.net/archives/2008/01/30/freedom-zero/
and I do not emphasize what the page says, neither if I agree or not,
but only to examples of freedom zero.

As there you will find example with Mac OS X:

> Mac OS X does not satisfy freedom 0 because according to the license
> you are not permitted to run it on non-Apple hardware. Most
> annoyingly this includes virtual hardware, although this restriction
> has apparently been relaxed in Mac OS X Server

Maybe such software cannot run or function on non-Apple hardware, but
license is the legal document preventing the freedom to attempt
running software how user wish and want.

Now please compare:

1) When you receive such software you receive license preventing your
   freedom to run it how you wish.

2) When you received MIDI hardware I bet you did not receive any kind
   of license preventing you to use MIDI hardware how you wish, for
   example, telling you that you are not allowed to use it as
   explosive detonator. 

It matters little if MIDI hardware can function as explosive detonator
but nobody legally prevent you doing it. Manufacturers or sellers may
have guarantee conditions that they will not repair your hardware if
it was used improperly. But that also does not prevent you using it
improperly. It only prevents you getting the guaranteed repair.

> And the device has very cool seeming LED backlights under
> various pads (force-sensitive ("velocity sensative" in midi-speak)
> buttons).  If I submit to the proprietary software I can configure
> different colors and different triggers to turn the lights on
> and off -- but there is no libre software to do this.

It is matter of proprietary versus free software in the device. It is
not matter of hardware.

You can legally use (comparable to "run") that hardware for whatever
purpose you wish and want. There is no comparable conflict with
Freedom Zero as in software because nobody is preventing you legally
to use ("run") it how you wish and want.

"Using" or "running for any purpose" does not imply "functioning". So
do not mistake those terms.

Let me quote more from that website where they say the following
statement came from FSF:

> The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of
> person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for
> any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to
> communicate about it with the developer or any other specific
> entity. In this freedom, it is the user’s purpose that matters, not
> the developer’s purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for
> your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then
> free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose
> your purposes on her.

That means there is no discrimination. I don't think that any MIDI
hardware in the world ever has been sold with the "license" preventing
you to use MIDI hardware free for your purposes. 

Thus it is not comparable, not in the context, to speak of hardware
and freedom zero as there is no actual objective problem with
hardware. Don't mistake "function" with "purpose".

Another example:


Here is the real example of absence of freedom zero:
https://github.com/gnusupport/AVideo/blob/master/LICENSE

Where it says:
"The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil."

Purpose of using the software for porn distribution is considered by
their authors "evil". But for majority of people watching porn and
enjoying it, it is considered "good". It is vague constraint where
author retains control over the user and users' purposes. It is
absence of Freedom Zero.

When you purchase MIDI hardware you do not get similar license as it
is not necessary, it is hardware. You can do with hardware in general
what you wish and use it for whatever

Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

> Seeing differences or making distinctions is intelligent approach, 
not seeing differences is the opposite. Let us see differences.  We are 
in the discussion because we want to point out differences, find the 
differences and act or not act upon it. -- Louis


I agree with hypocratic approach and i am open to discussion, please 
explain clearly what you feel like should be discussed (i think that 
with past e-mails i've responded to all questions already?).


> With hardware I had personally never problem because hardware never 
had any copyrights attached preventing me to give hardware to my 
friends. I could give it to them, ask them to come to play on computer 
with me. Thus I cannot see how those "four essential freedom" that 
relate to free software also relate to hardware. -- Louis


While i consider that being able to gift, borrow and sell the hardware 
is important for Hardware Freedom i mainly meant the hardware files used 
to fabricate the hardware e.g. sharing a hardware files for a 3D printer 
with friends and 3rd party.


> Did anybody prevent you to use hardware for any purpose? -- Louis

yes, e.g. the FSF endorsed Purism doesn't enable me to use Librem 5 the 
way i want as their hardware files are proprietary (excluding stripped 
down schematics) and i have to pay to be able to use the device (not to 
say that i am against manufacturers selling the hardware as i find that 
perfectly acceptable as long as i have all the hardware files needed to 
build it myself using a libre fabricator).


> Are you talking there about hardware or software? As you mentioned 
only software, why is then "hardware" mixed there? -- Louis


I see the hardware files same as software so i argue that the same rules 
should be applied..


In this scenario with:

> - 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) -- Kreyren


I meant being able to get schematics and gerber files to study how the 
components are wired together, being able to inspect the chip's 
microcode or wiring (so having access to the shematics of the chip) so 
that i can look at the physical hardware and interpret the schematics on 
it to understand it.


> You wanted to say you want to study how hardware works, but then you 
speak of all the software in the hardware. -- Louis


So far i feel like everyone was making a destinction in-between the 
firmware ran on the hardware e.g. the argument by RMS about the usage of 
chips and software itself. Personally i see no difference here and i 
argue that same software freedoms should apply in this case which i 
don't feel like are sufficiently represented atm.


Note that the firmware and verilog files are just part of what i see is 
the issue as schematics and gerber files are also critical.


> Whatever hardware you buy, or otherwise acquire legally you are also 
free to redistribute to anybody. You can also become an official 
distributor. Joking. But I do get your point.


Not always e.g. you may be forced to sign an NDA or alike preventing you 
to sell the device without suffering a fine or iirc what apple was 
trying with "renting" a 1000 USD device to people so that it can't be 
sold as legally the device that you paid for is not yours.


Or with making modifications to the device and then selling it as 
allegedly explained in 
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/is-it-illegal-for-you-to-sell-jailbreak-services-or-iphone-ipod-touch.749037 
using "jailbreaking" which grants you root permissions to the device.


> Jailbreaking is a violation of Apple's intellectual property rights. 
That means yes, it is technically illegal.

> Apple and AT are likely entitled to damages in a civil court.
> They do not pursue this because it would be expensive and not yield 
much in the way of preventing others from jailbreaking (see RIAA and 
music piracy).
> That being said, if someone turned this into an honest to goodness 
business plan, it might be more attractive to go after that person.
> That is, as I understand it, the legal state of play. None of this 
constitutes legal advice, and I am not liable for your reliance on this 
information. -- TheCookie on Macrumors


Or what apple did to louis rossman by ceasing parts that apple didn't 
even fabricate [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVL65qwBGnw=1s]


> However, I don't think that we talk of "hardware", we do talk of the 
free hardware design here. -- Louis


I argue that Free Hardware by itself is also important using the 
definition of hardware with all files that were used to fabricate it 
released under four freedoms complying license and that can be 
fabricated on a fabricator that also has all the files needed to build 
it released under four freedoms complying license including the used

Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

2022-02-01 Thread Dennis Payne

On Sun, 2022-01-30 at 20:20 +, Jacob Hrbek wrote:
> So the time for FSF to pitch in is now and FSF's endorsement has a
> major
> impact on free hardware development.

I think we have different opinions on the impact of FSF and the state
of free hardware development. I view the free hardware movement as
still in an early adopter stage. As such promoting it won't accomplish
much because it is not ready for people.

Since FSF has more technically minded members, maybe endorsing free
hardware can help development. But I don't think there is a lot of
evidence for that basis.

-- 
Dennis Payne
du...@identicalsoftware.com
https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@dulsi

___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

* Jacob Hrbek  [2022-02-01 09:16]:
> > Your reference to "Router Freedom" is not in the context of free
> hardware design. It is in the context of Internet providers that will
> give the Internet access to user under condition that only their
> suggested router is used. That is quite different issue and it is not
> relevant to free hardware designs. -- Louis
> 
> it may seem like it, but router freedom is important in the EU as the
> ISP are forcing their own and proprietary routers and FSFE's campaign
> enables a lot of people to use their own router which are often Free
> Hardware e.g. in Czechia and partially thanks to FSFE's campaign we have
> a lot of people doing self-ISP and providing internet to others, see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Internet_service_provider and it
> seems that majority of those WISP solutions are open-source but don't
> quote me on it.

Sure, however, it is deviation of your first statement. You pointed
out how FSFE is talking about free hardware designs, while in reality
it was about "router freedom" related to Internet providers. It is not
related to free hardware designs.

How I see that situation, those Internet providers could as well use
hardware designed under free license and yet compel users to use their
router. I hope you can see that hypothetical situation as it is not
related to free hardware design issue, it is related probably to
easier configuration and minimization of expenses in the company's
business. I can imagine thousands of people inquiring for thousands of
different routers on how to configure the connection and money being
spent for nothing. I can fully understand such companies but I also
like to use my own router.

> That said I don't believe that FSFE is currently in a position to do
> more in terms of Free Hardware, but it seems that majority of it's
> members are very interested in it.

Though all that is not related to free hardware design. Router Freedom
is not related to free hardware.

FSF and FSFE may have its philosophy as common factor, but are not
directly related organizations, they are separate. Feel free to write
them directly.

-- 
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

* Richard Stallman  [2022-02-01 08:08]:
> [[[ 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. ]]]
> 
>   > A child who knows what is blindworm
> 
> Sorry, I'm lost.  I don't know that word.

Blindworm looks like small snake, it is lizard without legs often
welcome in gardens of the world. If you would see it without knowing
what it is you would inevitably think it is a snake, while it is not.

According to Wikipedia they don't exist in Americas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_worm


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

> Cell phones are very similar.  You can not replace the operating 
system on any popular model with free software. -- Lord


Majority of popular android devices have Free Software OS alternative 
and if you know how to do micro soldering and chip reflowing then you 
can force linux on an Apple device, but that won't help your control and 
privacy.


And on Android phones you might still rely on the manufacturer to be 
able to replace the OS without reflowing as the manufacturer has to 
allow you to change the OS and if you do the reflow it's likely that the 
bootloader won't let you boot it.


On 2/1/22 05:04, Thomas Lord wrote:

Cell phones are very similar.  You can not replace the
operating system on any popular model with free software.


--
Jacob Hrbek, In support of ukraine sovereignty #supportUkraine



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

2022-01-27 Thread Adrien Bourmault via libreplanet-discuss

> I cannot see how FSF doesn't enable you to use any terms you wish and
-- Louis

Explained in previous e-mail, let me know if i missed anything and i
will elaborate.

> What I suggest to you is that you start re-defining, defining,
re-thinking and fixing very good all the legal issues by using legal
assistance, attorneys, advisors, various assistants or foundations and
organizations which support the cause. -- Louis

While i argue that the GPLv3 is not an option for Hardware freedom, this
is not the main issue as FSF still remains authority on User Freedom and
have a major impact on Hardware Freedom as explained in previous e-mail.

The only relevant organizations that i am aware of for this are:
- OSHW who are seemingly not aligned with FSF values
- FSFE who are already supporting hardware freedom with e.g.
https://fsfe.org/activities/routers/routers.en.html, but lack the
influence past FSF on the subject.

> Right now, it seem like you are confused, n
ot me. You speak of free
software license that should relate to hardware. But it is not meant for
hardware. -- Louis

Confusion is always a possibility, but i believe that i said that GPLv3
is being widely used for hardware development by FSF supporters and
members e.g. the mentioned RepRap developers who discussed GPLv4 that i
would support to include hardware freedom.

On 1/31/22 20:14, Jean Louis wrote:

* Jacob Hrbek  [2022-01-31 17:52]:

I agree that this is a problem, but as presented FSF doesn't enable us
to use other terms as it's too software-oriented so this is the best we
can do even when the hardware is released under GPLv3.

I cannot see how FSF doesn't enable you to use any terms you wish and
want.

Purpose of FSF is distributing free software, campaigning for it. How
is that disabling you to use any kind of language or terms in your
life or your activities?

And I cannot see how is hardware related t

o GPLv3, as it is software

license related to copyrights. Now you say it is related to
hardware.

When RMS designed GPL he was not alone in writing those texts. It
requires serious legal qualifications, skills and experience. To
design a long lasting copyright license for software requires bunch of
efforts.

What I suggest to you is that you start re-defining, defining,
re-thinking and fixing very good all the legal issues by using legal
assistance, attorneys, advisors, various assistants or foundations and
organizations which support the cause.

Right now, it seem like you are confused, not me. You speak of free
software license that should relate to hardware. But it is not meant
for hardware.

I do understand what you want with the hardware, but you should not
mix the terms.

--
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https:

//stallmansupport.org/

--
Jacob Hrbek, In support of ukraine sovereignty #supportUkraine

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

freedom-respecting hardware Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

2022-02-01 Thread Thomas Lord

Respectfully, Richard, I disagree with your analysis:

There is a fundamental conceptual difference between
(1) a mode of usage you don't know how to invoke, and
(2) a mode of usage you are prohibited from utilizing.

Freedom 0 is meant to prevent (2).  For instance, if the developer
claims that you are forbidden to run a program unless you have a
contract to permit it, that is an example of (2).  Freedom 0
means that everyone who gets a copy has authorization to run it.

The technological problem is that switching on the full features
of a device can require a password that is unique to the device
and that can only be obtained separately. For example, it is
common for manufacturers to require a user to register
personal information with them in order to activate the device.

Making the software that operates the machine libre is not
sufficient if that software can not do its job unless the
user discloses personal information to the manufacturer's
web site -- and that is a real thing going on today.

My understanding is that this is common practice among manufacturers
of cell phones, and that it has begun happening with music
making devices.

I think a rough draft of the principles might be this:

  1. If a device connects to other computing systems,
 complete documentation of the protocols MUST be
 provided.  Users MUST be free to share this
 documentation including a right to create clearly
 identified derived works and share those.
 The protocol documentation MUST be complete in the
 sense that the user can fully use the device while not
 being required to obtain any other information about the
 device.  There MUST be no restrictions that prohibit or
 inhibit anyone from implementing the protocols.

  2. If the device is programmable, the internal software interfaces
 MUST be fully documented similarly, and there should be
 no limitations preventing users from using only their own
 choice of software on the device. The interface documentation
 MUST also be complete so that the user can fully operate the
 device while not being required to obtain any other
 information about the device.

  3. If the device contains software stored in read-only memory,
 the software SHOULD be free software.  When practical, the
 physical design of the machine should allow users to replace
 the read-only memory with a substitute (for example, ROM
 chips should be socketed.)  There MUST be no restrictions
 against creating and using free software ROM replacements.

  4. All software bundled with a device SHOULD be free software.

I could be wrong but I think you already agree with those statements
or at least something close to them.

I'm trying to consolidate them into a set of principles and
objective standards that hardware vendors can be seen either to
embrace or violate.

The 4 freedom-respecting principles for hardware should have a name
and perhaps there should be a process for certifying that a device
complies (much as there are processes for certifying that a software
license is a free software license).  This can help educate both
users and device makers about the issues, and facilitate a
movement to promote these principles.

-t

On 2022-01-31 21:07, 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. ]]]

  > In the music making world, it is distressingly common to sell
  > hardware such as MIDI controllers (think: fancy game controllers
  > but for music making) with capabilities that can not be accessed
  > without difficult feats of reverse engineering, or else having
  > to use proprietary software.  Often, the proprietary software
  > further requires users to provide economically valuable
  > personal information to the hardware making corporation.

There is a fundamental conceptual difference between
(1) a mode of usage you don't know how to invoke, and
(2) a mode of usage you are prohibited from utilizing.

Freedom 0 is meant to prevent (2).  For instance, if the developer
claims that you are forbidden to run a program unless you have a
contract to permit it, that is an example of (2).  Freedom 0
means that everyone who gets a copy has authorization to run it.

As for (1), releasing the source code enables users to
find the undocumented commands, thus how to invoke
whatever features exist.

___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

2022-01-31 Thread Richard Stallman

[[[ 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 the music making world, it is distressingly common to sell
  > hardware such as MIDI controllers (think: fancy game controllers
  > but for music making) with capabilities that can not be accessed
  > without difficult feats of reverse engineering, or else having
  > to use proprietary software.  Often, the proprietary software
  > further requires users to provide economically valuable
  > personal information to the hardware making corporation.

There is a fundamental conceptual difference between
(1) a mode of usage you don't know how to invoke, and
(2) a mode of usage you are prohibited from utilizing.

Freedom 0 is meant to prevent (2).  For instance, if the developer
claims that you are forbidden to run a program unless you have a
contract to permit it, that is an example of (2).  Freedom 0
means that everyone who gets a copy has authorization to run it.

As for (1), releasing the source code enables users to
find the undocumented commands, thus how to invoke
whatever features exist.



-- 
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

2022-01-31 Thread Richard Stallman

[[[ 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. ]]]

  > A child who knows what is blindworm

Sorry, I'm lost.  I don't know that word.

-- 
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

2022-01-31 Thread Thomas Lord

I have tried, but I have not seen in the above paragraph how anybody
prevented you to use the MIDI controller for other purposes.

Example:  I have a small MIDI keyboard controller called
the "Arturia Minilab mkII".

I can use its most basic capabilities with linux music
production software like jack, or pipewire, and
various libre synthesizers, drum machines, effects
stacks, and Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) software
like Ardour or QTractor (and many more).

But...  the device has non-volatile memory to configure
its settings and to switch on-the-fly among configurations
that I can not use without running proprietary software (therefore,
I can't use them period).

And the device has very cool seeming LED backlights under
various pads (force-sensitive ("velocity sensative" in midi-speak)
buttons).  If I submit to the proprietary software I can configure
different colors and different triggers to turn the lights on
and off -- but there is no libre software to do this.

Thus, I am blocked from using the full capabilities of the
hardware by the company hoarding the device-specific protocols
that can operate those features and doing that to try to trap
me into using proprietary software.

Cell phones are very similar.  You can not replace the
operating system on any popular model with free software.

-t

On 2022-01-31 13:17, Jean Louis wrote:

* Thomas Lord  [2022-01-31 23:53]:

Wait, I think we are onto something useful today:

Jean writes:

   > - Freedom 0: The freedom the use the hardware
   >   for any purpose

   > Did anybody prevent you to use hardware for any purpose?

YES!  Two examples:

In the music making world, it is distressingly common to sell
hardware such as MIDI controllers (think: fancy game controllers
but for music making) with capabilities that can not be accessed
without difficult feats of reverse engineering, or else having
to use proprietary software.  Often, the proprietary software
further requires users to provide economically valuable
personal information to the hardware making corporation.

I have tried, but I have not seen in the above paragraph how anybody
prevented you to use the MIDI controller for other purposes.

Which other purpose did you want to use it?

Was there any legal document preventing you to use it for other 
purpose?

The space of "smart phones"[sic] and related devices, the situation
is analogous and much, much more intense.  Customers buy hardware
whose capacities they can not access at all without agreeing to
use software that spies on them relentlessly (such spying often
being the main product the software makers are selling to 3rd
parties).

I cannot see how is hardware buyer prevented to use it for any purpose
one wants?

You can take a stone and use it as knife, you just need good
imagination.

If your phone has some hidden features which don't work, it does not
mean you are not legally free to use those hidden features if you know
how.

What is important is if anybody is preventing user legally to use
hardware how they wish and want? Maybe I wish to use a keyboard as
mouse (living mouse) trap and manufacturer wanted me to sign agreement
that I am allowed to use keyboard only as keyboard, but not to catch
live mouses in my house.

The fact that keyboard maybe does not work or that it is not quite
suitable for mouse traps, does not mean that I am legally prevented to
use it how I wish and want.

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

2022-01-31 Thread Thomas Lord

Wait, I think we are onto something useful today:

Jean writes:

   > - Freedom 0: The freedom the use the hardware
   >   for any purpose

   > Did anybody prevent you to use hardware for any purpose?

YES!  Two examples:

In the music making world, it is distressingly common to sell
hardware such as MIDI controllers (think: fancy game controllers
but for music making) with capabilities that can not be accessed
without difficult feats of reverse engineering, or else having
to use proprietary software.  Often, the proprietary software
further requires users to provide economically valuable
personal information to the hardware making corporation.

The space of "smart phones"[sic] and related devices, the situation
is analogous and much, much more intense.  Customers buy hardware
whose capacities they can not access at all without agreeing to
use software that spies on them relentlessly (such spying often
being the main product the software makers are selling to 3rd parties).

Ideas of libre hardware seem like they are meant to prevent this
problem but this problem doesn't require as much as the definitions
of libre hardware we've seen here.   It is enough if the full 
capabilities

of hardware are disclosed and, if the hardware requires software to
operate, that it let users develop, modify, share, and use their
own choice of software.

I don't know of a good name for hardware designed within that constraint
but it could perhaps use such a name!  What would MIDI equipment and
call phones have in common if they satisfied this freedom-protecting
constraint?

-t

On 2022-01-31 11:47, Jean Louis wrote:

* Jacob Hrbek  [2022-01-26 22:18]:

> 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:

Seeing differences or making distinctions is intelligent approach, not
seeing differences is the opposite. Let us see differences.  We are in
the discussion because we want to point out differences, find the
differences and act or not act upon it.

Example:

A child who knows what is blindworm may take it from ground and put in
his pocket or otherwise play with it. An adult who does not know what
is blindworm may kill it by thinking it is a snake. Child could be as
well get abused by such adult who does not know differences.

The Free Hardware is hardware that respects four essential freedoms:

Personally, I have got problems with software because when I was not
allowed to freely copy it to friends. I felt always unfair as that is
what I was doing and what I used to do. And I did feel constrained in
my freedom.

With hardware I had personally never problem because hardware never
had any copyrights attached preventing me to give hardware to my
friends. I could give it to them, ask them to come to play on computer
with me. Thus I cannot see how those "four essential freedom" that
relate to free software also relate to hardware.

- Freedom 0: The freedom the use the hardware for any purpose

Did anybody prevent you to use hardware for any purpose?

If there is no problem in the first place, your solution to apply
freedom zero to hardware is not a solution at all, because there was
no problem to solve.

- 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)

Are you talking there about hardware or software? As you mentioned
only software, why is then "hardware" mixed there?

You wanted to say you want to study how hardware works, but then you
speak of all the software in the hardware.

Apply those freedoms to software in the hardware.

- Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute and make copies so that you 
can

help your neighbour.

Whatever hardware you buy, or otherwise acquire legally you are also
free to redistribute to anybody. You can also become an official
distributor. Joking. But I do get your point.

However, I don't think that we talk of "hardware", we do talk of the
free hardware design here.

Such design would be in some CAD file or other types of files. I have
made my own design of a mining machine and have given it to key people
and they are free to manufacture the machine because they got the
design as CAD file with the free license. Similar is with the computer
hardware.

You have to be distinctive when expressing your plan. Otherwise
hardware manufacturers will think you are against them.

If somebody is maybe producing keyboards and selling them, and they
have some special new features and patent for 20 years to benefit from
the invention, then some guys come around and claim that they want
"free hardware" -- that could as well mean you want to rob the
magazine to get the free hardware. If they say they want to

Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

2022-01-31 Thread Jean Louis

* Jacob Hrbek  [2022-01-31 17:52]:
> I agree that this is a problem, but as presented FSF doesn't enable us
> to use other terms as it's too software-oriented so this is the best we
> can do even when the hardware is released under GPLv3.

I cannot see how FSF doesn't enable you to use any terms you wish and
want.

Purpose of FSF is distributing free software, campaigning for it. How
is that disabling you to use any kind of language or terms in your
life or your activities?

And I cannot see how is hardware related to GPLv3, as it is software
license related to copyrights. Now you say it is related to
hardware. 

When RMS designed GPL he was not alone in writing those texts. It
requires serious legal qualifications, skills and experience. To
design a long lasting copyright license for software requires bunch of
efforts.

What I suggest to you is that you start re-defining, defining,
re-thinking and fixing very good all the legal issues by using legal
assistance, attorneys, advisors, various assistants or foundations and
organizations which support the cause. 

Right now, it seem like you are confused, not me. You speak of free
software license that should relate to hardware. But it is not meant
for hardware.

I do understand what you want with the hardware, but you should not
mix the terms.


-- 
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

2022-01-31 Thread Jean Louis

* Jean Louis  [2022-01-31 19:28]:
* Pen-Yuan Hsing  [2022-01-24 20:08]:
> 
> 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/

They have also published what is considered "fake open source". While
I don't find "open source" distinctive enough for that same reason,
and we use "free software" rather than "open source" -- they have
published various levels of "openness":
https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/wiki/Levels_of_Openness#Levels_of_Openness

Levels of Openness
--

We have observed 6 levels of open source in our journey towards the
Open Source Economy, and this article explains them.

Why is this important or more than just philosophical banter? In the
Post-Truth Era, we cannot accept lies if we want societal progress. We
present our observations here to clear up misconceptions about an
important topic of openness - which has profound implications on
access and justice. Ultimately, this openness refers to openness
regarding the distribution of economic power. Technology is power. So
it it important to understand how the world distributes power - how
open and transparent it is with its technical knowledge - if we want
to do better than we are doing today. Mass enlightenmess still needs
to be resolved for democracy to work better than it does
today. Because as in the movie The Gladiator - "The heart of Rome is
not the marble of the senated. It's the sand of the coliseum."

OSE is radically open source. We use the Distributive Enterprise
method - where the goal is explicitly to solve the last unsolved
problem of the economic sustem: distribution. Solving distribution
(Sustainable Development Goal #1 - zero poverty) - is a critical and
Pressing World Issue. Open Source is uniquely position to address
exactly this issue. However, to achieve the goals of zero poverty - we
must make sure that open source as a term includes the critical
ingredient that allows for a historical transfer of wealth from the
few to the many. That critical ingredient is economic freedom - to
collaborate and be able to make a living from (to sell) the technology
in question. That is one of the 4 Freedoms of Open Source, perhaps the
most relevant, of the 4 Freedoms.

This point - the economic freedom point - is absolutely obvious from
the open hardware definition. More broadly speaking - the concept of
economic freedom is generally accepted as good - unless you are a
psychopath or dictator. In practice, however - the world does not yet
accept economic freedom at its core: proprietary development - as
opposed to open source collaboration - is the current norm in more
than 99% of the economy. 100T is the entire economy - $33B is open
source software [1].

So to be clear: the world does not practice economic freedom. Anyone
who believes that economic freedom exists is misinformed. This is a
big elephant in the room.

Some clarity can begin by first understanding what open source is, and
how it relates to economic freedom. And why, from the OSE perspective,
we like to make the point about true economic freedom - so that we can
even begin to move towards economic freedom as a civilization. We are
still at the denial stage. Promoting fake open source as open source
is part of that denial.

The first step to a solution of the world economy begins with healing
this denial. This page intends to shed some light on the topic.

We can all start by recognizing that open source, in its definition,
means economic freedom. Any freedomfighter thus must endorse open
source, by definition.  Open Source

Open Source - meaning complying with the OSHWA Definition or DIN SPEC
3105. The best-in-class example here is Lulzbot up to the end of 2019
(until it got acquired) - which shares all of its CAD designs and
production engineering in open formats. (we cannot tell what will
happen after its end-of-2019 acquisition by another company).

Even further than open source is Public Production Engineering. Open
projects are nice, but without documenting the methods of how to
produce the products, it may not be easy to replicate a viable
enterprise. And thus - the project cannot be said to produce open
source product a la Distributive Enterprise. Yet it is the ability to
produce economically significant products - that is the greatest
transformative potential of open source philosophy. This philosophy
has not yet been tapped in hardware, and it has been coopted in
software. See The Success of Open Source (software). See The Failure
of Open Source.

Undocumented Open Source


Is code that is available, but without documentation - open source?
Unfortunately, the legal definition of open source (OSI definition,
section 2) is not explicit about this point. Section 2, addressing
source code - states "Deliberately obfuscated source code is not

Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

2022-01-31 Thread Jean Louis

* Jacob Hrbek  [2022-01-26 22:18]:
> > 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:

Seeing differences or making distinctions is intelligent approach, not
seeing differences is the opposite. Let us see differences.  We are in
the discussion because we want to point out differences, find the
differences and act or not act upon it.

Example:

A child who knows what is blindworm may take it from ground and put in
his pocket or otherwise play with it. An adult who does not know what
is blindworm may kill it by thinking it is a snake. Child could be as
well get abused by such adult who does not know differences.

> The Free Hardware is hardware that respects four essential freedoms:

Personally, I have got problems with software because when I was not
allowed to freely copy it to friends. I felt always unfair as that is
what I was doing and what I used to do. And I did feel constrained in
my freedom. 

With hardware I had personally never problem because hardware never
had any copyrights attached preventing me to give hardware to my
friends. I could give it to them, ask them to come to play on computer
with me. Thus I cannot see how those "four essential freedom" that
relate to free software also relate to hardware.

> - Freedom 0: The freedom the use the hardware for any purpose

Did anybody prevent you to use hardware for any purpose?

If there is no problem in the first place, your solution to apply
freedom zero to hardware is not a solution at all, because there was
no problem to solve.

> - 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)

Are you talking there about hardware or software? As you mentioned
only software, why is then "hardware" mixed there? 

You wanted to say you want to study how hardware works, but then you
speak of all the software in the hardware.

Apply those freedoms to software in the hardware.

> - Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute and make copies so that you can
> help your neighbour.

Whatever hardware you buy, or otherwise acquire legally you are also
free to redistribute to anybody. You can also become an official
distributor. Joking. But I do get your point.

However, I don't think that we talk of "hardware", we do talk of the
free hardware design here.

Such design would be in some CAD file or other types of files. I have
made my own design of a mining machine and have given it to key people
and they are free to manufacture the machine because they got the
design as CAD file with the free license. Similar is with the computer
hardware. 

You have to be distinctive when expressing your plan. Otherwise
hardware manufacturers will think you are against them.

If somebody is maybe producing keyboards and selling them, and they
have some special new features and patent for 20 years to benefit from
the invention, then some guys come around and claim that they want
"free hardware" -- that could as well mean you want to rob the
magazine to get the free hardware. If they say they want to
"distribute it freely" that would mean that after the robbery they
will give it to their neighbors.

Thus you have to make distinction what you need and want to
communicate as clear as possible.

Hardware design is not touchable, it is maybe on paper or in the
computer file. Is that what you want to distribute freely? You can
make new hardware based on that design.

Hardware is touchable, that is keyboard, computer, hard disk, etc. But
you can't claim you want it for free as that is somebody's physical
property. 

> - Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the hardware

That is maybe a problem, but I think you have to re-define, and find
if there are some constraints to freedom, and remove that what is not
the issue, and use that what is the issue.

You should give examples that we can see where, who, how, prevented
you the freedom to improve your hardware. That may be related to the
"Right to repair".

> release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the
> public, so that the whole community benefits.

I think nobody prevents you doing that anyway. Even if manufacturer
asks you to repair the hardware and no third party, you still have the
right to repair it yourself, your hardware is yours, is anybody
preventing you to improve it?

> 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,
>

Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

2022-01-31 Thread Jacob Hrbek

> RMS doesn't agree with focusing on Free Hardware (or whatever you
call it). You could try doing it separately and get fsf buy in after the
fact. Or try to convince other fsf officials or the general membership.
-- Payne
> I'm not saying the end goal is bad. I would like to see more Free
Hardware but FSF isn't going to do development of Free Hardware. Their
endorsement isn't that important at this point. -- Payne

it is already done separately by FSF supporters who use GPLv3 for it and
FSF is too involved in such development for it to be ignored without
sabotaging the development thus why i am raising this issue here.

So the time for FSF to pitch in is now and FSF's endorsement has a major
impact on free hardware development.

+ from my talks with other FSF supporters and BoD members it seems that
majority supports it.

On 1/30/22 17:45, Dennis Payne wrote:

RMS doesn't agree with focusing on Free Hardware (or whatever you call
it). You could try doi

ng it separately and get fsf buy in after the

fact. Or try to convince other fsf officials or the general membership.

However I don't see the end result being a flood of great Free
Hardware. The Respect Your Freedom campaign hasn't suddenly transformed
the few participating laptop/workstation/server vendors to industry
juggernauts. Any Free Hardware site is going to have even less end-user
products.

I'm not saying the end goal is bad. I would like to see more Free
Hardware but FSF isn't going to do development of Free Hardware. Their
endorsement isn't that important at this point.

--
Dennis Payne
du...@identicalsoftware.com
https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@dulsi

___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

--
Jacob Hrbek, In support of ukraine sovereignty #supportUkraine

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

2022-01-31 Thread Jacob Hrbek

> RMS doesn't agree with focusing on Free Hardware (or whatever you
call it). You could try doing it separately and get fsf buy in after the
fact. Or try to convince other fsf officials or the general membership.
-- Payne
> I'm not saying the end goal is bad. I would like to see more Free
Hardware but FSF isn't going to do development of Free Hardware. Their
endorsement isn't that important at this point. -- Payne

it is already done separately by FSF supporters who use GPLv3 for it and
FSF is too involved in such development for it to be ignored without
sabotaging the development thus why i am raising this issue here.

So the time for FSF to pitch in is now and FSF's endorsement has a major
impact on free hardware development.

On 1/30/22 17:45, Dennis Payne wrote:

RMS doesn't agree with focusing on Free Hardware (or whatever you call
it). You could try doing it separately and get fsf buy in after the
fact. Or try to convince other fsf officials or th

e general membership.

However I don't see the end result being a flood of great Free
Hardware. The Respect Your Freedom campaign hasn't suddenly transformed
the few participating laptop/workstation/server vendors to industry
juggernauts. Any Free Hardware site is going to have even less end-user
products.

I'm not saying the end goal is bad. I would like to see more Free
Hardware but FSF isn't going to do development of Free Hardware. Their
endorsement isn't that important at this point.

--
Dennis Payne
du...@identicalsoftware.com
https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@dulsi

___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

--
Jacob Hrbek, In support of ukraine sovereignty #supportUkraine

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

2022-01-30 Thread Paul Sutton via libreplanet-discuss

On 29/01/2022 15:09, Jacob Hrbek wrote:
 > It is nice that that exists -- but I am not going to make my own LED 
bulbs. I don't have the know-how or the time. -- RMS
 > So I buy commercially made LED bulbs in a store.  Their designs are 
not free, but I don't see that as an issue _for this kind of hardware_. 
(See https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html for why not.) 
-- RMS

Why are you dismissing the hardware freedom to everyone else just 
because you "don't have the time"? For me projects like relativty 
 that gives me a set of 
instructions on how to build the VR headset with hardware, software and 
chasis files that expects that i make everything myself or source the 
parts myself and to which i can contribute to is perfect and what i want 
FSF to support.

Note that i do not dismiss your preferred way of getting the LED bulbs, 
i think it's perfectly acceptable as long as free hardware alternative 
does not exists, but my argument is that this exact behavior by FSF is 
what is causing the continuous harm as for people like me who love to 
design free hardware FSF just constantly puts roadblocks in my way that 
prevent me from fully focusing on the development..

 > They need to screw into the fan/lamp fixture on the ceiling. -- RMS

FreeCAD will help you design the socket, should take max 2 min, but the 
provided chasis on thingiverse already has the mounting solution 
included and there are so many designs that i think that you will find 
the one that fits your usecase.

 > In addition, they may need a special circuit for dimming. -- RMS
 > That fixture has a switch which was built old-fashioned bulbs, which 
you could dim just by reducing the voltage.  These dimmable bulbs have 
to respond to that signal somehow. -- RMS

If I understand one method,  a potentiometer is looked up to +v  gnd and 
  one of the Analogue in pins, this then gives a scale from I think 
0-1024 wwhich can then be mapped to the led brightness.

Pulse with modulation from the mood lamp project allows for different 
brightnesses of a tri color LED,  So i am guessing there is a way to 
just control a single pin brightness that way.

https://create.arduino.cc/projecthub/wieselly/arduino-tutorial-using-potentiometer-control-led-light-0dbbd1

May do it

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

2022-01-30 Thread Dennis Payne

RMS doesn't agree with focusing on Free Hardware (or whatever you call
it). You could try doing it separately and get fsf buy in after the
fact. Or try to convince other fsf officials or the general membership.

However I don't see the end result being a flood of great Free
Hardware. The Respect Your Freedom campaign hasn't suddenly transformed
the few participating laptop/workstation/server vendors to industry
juggernauts. Any Free Hardware site is going to have even less end-user
products.

I'm not saying the end goal is bad. I would like to see more Free
Hardware but FSF isn't going to do development of Free Hardware. Their
endorsement isn't that important at this point.

-- 
Dennis Payne
du...@identicalsoftware.com
https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@dulsi



___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

2022-01-30 Thread Jacob Hrbek

> What I cannot agree to is to call it "open source hardware" as that
is misleading, it is also contrary to "free software". As open source is
not necessarily free software. There is a lot of confusion. -- Louis
> Maybe you do not see it. Research. Term "open source" is also used as
term for proprietary software with published sources. It is used for
variety of products worldwide. -- Louis

I agree that this is a problem, but as presented FSF doesn't enable us
to use other terms as it's too software-oriented so this is the best we
can do even when the hardware is released under GPLv3.

On 1/29/22 08:17, Jean Louis wrote:

What I cannot agree to is to call it "open source hardware" as that is
misleading, it is also contrary to "free software". As open source is
not necessarily free software. There is a lot of confusion.

--
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

2022-01-30 Thread Jean Louis

* Jacob Hrbek  [2022-01-28 23:35]:
> I disagree, majority if not all hardware has some form of indexing and
> identification. For example this 3DSimo pcb has silkscreen that identifies:
> - Production batch (teal)
> - Link to a source code (green)
> - OSHW logo indicating that it's hardware files are publicly available
> (yellow)

That is great that free hardware design exists and you have sent
picture to mailing list that brings more reality about it.

What I cannot agree to is to call it "open source hardware" as that is
misleading, it is also contrary to "free software". As open source is
not necessarily free software. There is a lot of confusion.

Maybe you do not see it. Research. Term "open source" is also used as
term for proprietary software with published sources. It is used for
variety of products worldwide.

It brings a lot of confusion in the future of hardware that is
supposed to be free.



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

2022-01-30 Thread Jacob Hrbek

> It is nice that that exists -- but I am not going to make my own LED 
bulbs. I don't have the know-how or the time. -- RMS
> So I buy commercially made LED bulbs in a store.  Their designs are 
not free, but I don't see that as an issue _for this kind of hardware_.  
(See https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html for why not.) 
-- RMS

Why are you dismissing the hardware freedom to everyone else just 
because you "don't have the time"? For me projects like relativty 
 that gives me a set of 
instructions on how to build the VR headset with hardware, software and 
chasis files that expects that i make everything myself or source the 
parts myself and to which i can contribute to is perfect and what i want 
FSF to support.

Note that i do not dismiss your preferred way of getting the LED bulbs, 
i think it's perfectly acceptable as long as free hardware alternative 
does not exists, but my argument is that this exact behavior by FSF is 
what is causing the continuous harm as for people like me who love to 
design free hardware FSF just constantly puts roadblocks in my way that 
prevent me from fully focusing on the development..

> They need to screw into the fan/lamp fixture on the ceiling. -- RMS

FreeCAD will help you design the socket, should take max 2 min, but the 
provided chasis on thingiverse already has the mounting solution 
included and there are so many designs that i think that you will find 
the one that fits your usecase.

> In addition, they may need a special circuit for dimming. -- RMS
> That fixture has a switch which was built old-fashioned bulbs, which 
you could dim just by reducing the voltage.  These dimmable bulbs have 
to respond to that signal somehow. -- RMS

In the proposal the "Special circuit for dimming" is handled by arduino 
which is a microcontroller that can be programmed easily through 
software, so no need for soldering just plugging in a dupont connectors 
like lego and you can design it anyway you want e.g. using a phone app, 
light switch in the wall etc.. (also plugs in like lego and the modules 
are commercially available)

This argument is like comparing a FizzBuzz written in C and saying that 
it's not practical nor possible to me tbh.

> let alone make the bulb. -- RMS

Took me 37 seconds on average to download the file from thingiverse and 
schedule a 3D print and if that is too much work for you then we can 
apply Free Software philosophy here and pay someone to design it and 
release it as Free Hardware for them to only give you the finished 
product. (which in terms of dimmable LEDs would most likely be 
significantly more economical in comparison to those that are 
commercially available in mainstream stores and has a set lifetime)

On 1/29/22 05:08, Richard Stallman wrote:

It is nice that that exists -- but I am not going to make my own LED bulbs.
I don't have the know-how or the time.

--
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

2022-01-28 Thread Richard Stallman

[[[ 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. ]]]

  > _Dimmable LED Bulbs:_ This is a practice project for arduino providing 
  > source code, schematics and elaborated documentation on 
  > https://create.arduino.cc/projecthub/NIKHIL1916/led-dimming-circuit-8d6c9e

  > It's released under GPlv3+ You can fork it and adjust it to do your 
  > computing as you wish e.g. adding bluetooth or wifi connection for 
  > Internet of Things with some example projects provided with the article.

It is nice that that exists -- but I am not going to make my own LED bulbs.
I don't have the know-how or the time.

They need to screw into the fan/lamp fixture on the ceiling.  In
addition, they may need a special circuit for dimming.  That fixture
has a switch which was built old-fashioned bulbs, which you could dim
just by reducing the voltage.  These dimmable bulbs have to respond to
that signal somehow.

Maybe I could solder the circuit, but I couldn't fit the parts into a
bulb with a screw-in connection, let alone make the bulb.

Anyway, that is a mental exercise only.  I don't have time to build
the physical things I use.

So I buy commercially made LED bulbs in a store.  Their designs are
not free, but I don't see that as an issue _for this kind of
hardware_.  (See https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html
for why not.)

  > _Digital Clock:_ I want to highlight here that not everything has to be 
  > electrical such as this digital sundial 
  > https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1068443

There is no direct sun in my bedroom even in a sunny day, let alone at
night or when it's cloudy.  There is no injustice or threat in the
clock/radio.  So it's ok.

It is good to encourage making hobbyist designs for various useful
things, but if we want to make free-design hardware usable for
everyone, it needs to be mass-produced.

When some mass-produced products start to come with schematics, etc.,
that will be the time to start pushing, pressuring for other
mass-produced products to do likewise.  Until then, encouragement is
enough.

This is a crucial place where the analogy between software and
hardware falls short.  Once someone makes a fully detailed software
design (i.e., a program), anyone (even a nonprogrammer) can quickly
install and run it.

By contrast, to use a hardware design, you have to build the physical
object step by step.  Most people don't know how, don't have the
tools, and can't spare the time.

To have a world of free-design hardware comparable to the Free World
of software, we need automated fab machines to make them for us.  (Of
course, we will demand that their hardware designs and software be
free.)  But such machines -- for consumer use -- don't exist yet at
all.  Not even for digital devices alone.

If civilization survives, we will get there, but not this decade I
expect.


-- 
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

Are CPUs and chips a hardware freedom issue? (sas Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware)

2022-01-28 Thread Jacob Hrbek

Can someone elaborate why are we concerned about CPUs in terms of 
hardware freedom?


My argument is that those are non-issue in terms of hardware and 
software freedom as you can _make_ CPU and chips through using RISC-V or 
RISC/POWER9, MIPS architecture if you have the relevant infrastructure 
and knowledge for it or to outsource the production and implement your 
own Quality Assurance to mitigate the risk of supply chain attack


_or_

You can use chips like rockchip, run an x-ray scan to see how it is 
wired together or if x-ray is not conclusive enough then put it on a CNC 
machine with a drill and remove layer by layer while making a 
high-definition picture of each layer cut to then construct a 3D 
representation of the construction to know _exactly_ how the chip works 
_and_ in terms of rockchip they provide all required tools to inspect 
the chip through software, their microcode and bootloader and maintain 
patches for linux to make sure it works.


In addition FPGAs are a thing and we have user-friendly and programmable 
chips like arduino released under GPLv3-compatible license including the 
hardware files so worst case scenario in majority of the cases is 
writting arduino code and using that until you can figure out better 
implementation.


So can anyone dispute that CPUs and chips are a hardware freedom issue 
and elaborate exactly why or can we all agree that those are not a 
problem to move forward?


On 1/27/22 09:33, Adrien Bourmault via libreplanet-discuss wrote:

Le 27 janvier 2022 05:13:09 GMT+01:00, Richard Stallman  a écrit :

[[[ 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

Hello to all. I add my little stone to this discussion to say first that I 
agree with Richard that today we cannot yet say no to non-free hardware as we 
do with software, and that we cannot push such pre-requisites into RYF.

What I have to add is mostly on the subject of processors, since we are talking 
about someone who has designed his own CPU.
Some of you know that I'm a student in France in a master's degree in processor 
architecture. My laboratory, the LIP6, has been trying for a few years to focus 
on VLSI (Very Large Scale Integration) design methods to design free hardware.

Thus, our university has created a complete VLSI chain as free software. It is 
called Coriolis and allows the design of an ASIC from its VHDL description to 
the drawing of the masks (see https://coriolis.lip6.fr)

Moreover, to design elements more quickly, component libraries are needed (to 
avoid reinventing the wheel). Especially for analog circuits. Our laboratory 
has therefore created the OCEANE library (sorry link in French, nobody has 
translated it yet https://www-soc.lip6.fr/equipe-cian/logiciels/oceane/).

Finally, so that the masks produced by these methods can be transformed into 
real hardware, we had to find a foundry that would give us its PDK (all the 
information to correctly size the masks and adapt them to specific 
technologies). Unfortunately most foundries keep these parameters a secret. But 
recently, SkyWater foundry released their PDK. It is a technology with a fine 
130nm etch. It's not state of the art, but it's enough to do something useful. 
You can find it here:
https://skywater-pdk.readthedocs.io/en/main/

Thanks to this, at LIP6 (which belongs to Sorbonne University) we are now able 
to implement processors respecting the ARM v2 specification freely. A work on 
RISC V is in progress this year.
--
Adrien Bourmault

Trésorier de l'Association Libre en Communs,
Associate member, Free Software Foundation
GPG: aad6b069819e6979
-
Defend Richard M. Stallman ! 
___
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

Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

2022-01-28 Thread Richard Stallman

[[[ 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. ]]]

  > > To me, this sounds like a definition for free designs for electronics 
  > and/or digital computing devices, but not hardware in general.

That's true.  But I think it is useful to think about digital devices
for a start.  We could extend the discussion later to cover furniture.

I will look at those "open source" web sites.

-- 
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

2022-01-28 Thread Richard Stallman

[[[ 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. ]]]

Just replacing "software" with "hardware" in the definition of free
software yields an incoherent result.  Compiling the program's source
is automatic and easy enough (assuming it has a makefile) that we can
identify a program with its source code.  We can't identify a physical
object with the designs of its parts.

-- 
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

2022-01-27 Thread Paul Sutton via libreplanet-discuss


On 27/01/2022 08:33, Adrien Bourmault via libreplanet-discuss wrote:

Le 27 janvier 2022 05:13:09 GMT+01:00, Richard Stallman  a écrit :

[[[ 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


Hello to all. I add my little stone to this discussion to say first that I 
agree with Richard that today we cannot yet say no to non-free hardware as we 
do with software, and that we cannot push such pre-requisites into RYF.

What I have to add is mostly on the subject of processors, since we are talking 
about someone who has designed his own CPU.
Some of you know that I'm a student in France in a master's degree in processor 
architecture. My laboratory, the LIP6, has been trying for a few years to focus 
on VLSI (Very Large Scale Integration) design methods to design free hardware.

Thus, our university has created a complete VLSI chain as free software. It is 
called Coriolis and allows the design of an ASIC from its VHDL description to 
the drawing of the masks (see https://coriolis.lip6.fr)

Moreover, to design elements more quickly, component libraries are needed (to 
avoid reinventing the wheel). Especially for analog circuits. Our laboratory 
has therefore created the OCEANE library (sorry link in French, nobody has 
translated it yet https://www-soc.lip6.fr/equipe-cian/logiciels/oceane/).

Finally, so that the masks produced by these methods can be transformed into 
real hardware, we had to find a foundry that would give us its PDK (all the 
information to correctly size the masks and adapt them to specific 
technologies). Unfortunately most foundries keep these parameters a secret. But 
recently, SkyWater foundry released their PDK. It is a technology with a fine 
130nm etch. It's not state of the art, but it's enough to do something useful. 
You can find it here:
https://skywater-pdk.readthedocs.io/en/main/

Thanks to this, at LIP6 (which belongs to Sorbonne University) we are now able 
to implement processors respecting the ARM v2 specification freely. A work on 
RISC V is in progress this year.


I'll check the links later, but this sounds like fantastic work,  well 
done to you, the university and everyone else involved.


Paul



___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss


--
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


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

Le 27 janvier 2022 05:13:09 GMT+01:00, Richard Stallman  a écrit :
>[[[ 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

Hello to all. I add my little stone to this discussion to say first that I 
agree with Richard that today we cannot yet say no to non-free hardware as we 
do with software, and that we cannot push such pre-requisites into RYF. 

What I have to add is mostly on the subject of processors, since we are talking 
about someone who has designed his own CPU. 
Some of you know that I'm a student in France in a master's degree in processor 
architecture. My laboratory, the LIP6, has been trying for a few years to focus 
on VLSI (Very Large Scale Integration) design methods to design free hardware. 

Thus, our university has created a complete VLSI chain as free software. It is 
called Coriolis and allows the design of an ASIC from its VHDL description to 
the drawing of the masks (see https://coriolis.lip6.fr)

Moreover, to design elements more quickly, component libraries are needed (to 
avoid reinventing the wheel). Especially for analog circuits. Our laboratory 
has therefore created the OCEANE library (sorry link in French, nobody has 
translated it yet https://www-soc.lip6.fr/equipe-cian/logiciels/oceane/).

Finally, so that the masks produced by these methods can be transformed into 
real hardware, we had to find a foundry that would give us its PDK (all the 
information to correctly size the masks and adapt them to specific 
technologies). Unfortunately most foundries keep these parameters a secret. But 
recently, SkyWater foundry released their PDK. It is a technology with a fine 
130nm etch. It's not state of the art, but it's enough to do something useful. 
You can find it here: 
https://skywater-pdk.readthedocs.io/en/main/

Thanks to this, at LIP6 (which belongs to Sorbonne University) we are now able 
to implement processors respecting the ARM v2 specification freely. A work on 
RISC V is in progress this year.
-- 
Adrien Bourmault

Trésorier de l'Association Libre en Communs,
Associate member, Free Software Foundation
GPG: aad6b069819e6979
-
Defend Richard M. Stallman ! 

signature.asc
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

2022-01-27 Thread Jacob Hrbek

> 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. -- RMS


_Dimmable LED Bulbs:_ This is a practice project for arduino providing 
source code, schematics and elaborated documentation on 
https://create.arduino.cc/projecthub/NIKHIL1916/led-dimming-circuit-8d6c9e


It's released under GPlv3+ You can fork it and adjust it to do your 
computing as you wish e.g. adding bluetooth or wifi connection for 
Internet of Things with some example projects provided with the article.


Thingiverse also has a lot of cool lamp designs such as this artichoke 
lamp https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1015178 that are compatible with 
this project that you might like 
https://www.thingiverse.com/search?q=light+bulb=things=relevant 
(note that you can use arduino pico)


So i would say that <25 EUR/USD in materials for the whole project.

_DC Power Adapters:_ This is probably the most designed thing in 
electrical engineering, depending on your usecase i found 
https://github.com/dc-power-supply/dc-power-supply.


The material cost could be anywhere from 0.42 EUR/USD and up.

_Digital Clock:_ I want to highlight here that not everything has to be 
electrical such as this digital sundial 
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1068443


Material cost is 0.39 EUR/USD on my 3D printer.

_Microwave oven:_ The microwave is a very simple circuit (basically 
power rectifier connected to a coil) so i think that any average kicad 
user can create one from scratch, but i can't in clear mind share 
relevant files here as too many people such end up like this guy 
https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=FIU8WZR9DNA (what he's doing is very very 
stupid and life endangering) as you need to understand the dangers 
around working with microwave as without it you will hurt 
yourself[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4440565/] and/or 
fry wifi receivers in your area.


If you still want to build a microwave then search for them on the web 
or alternatively i found an article how to convert any microwave oven 
into a linux-enabled https://lwn.net/Articles/674877 with article on how 
to make one from scratch.


The material cost is <35 EUR/USD (including sheet metal) assuming that 
you can find the coil on a local scrapyard (very common scrap part) 
otherwise you can make one yourself for <3 EUR/USD.


Is this sufficient as encouraging or what do you suggest we do to 
convert this effort from what you see as pushing?


>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? -- RMS


In relevant European politics we use the philosophy of using the most 
optimal solution for the task so adapting it into this situation: 
Technoliberal projects are clearly superior to non-free as they are 
significantly more functional and reusable which always makes them a 
better option in terms of citizen empowerement, ecology, economy and 
privacy as such they should always be preferred if they are sufficient 
or better solution to other alternatives and citizens should be informed 
about the reasoning to make an informed decisions.


So in this context i am not against the use of non-free hardware by the 
general public as long as they are no ethical considerations (e.g. 
spyware) and as long as that is the only solution e.g. for innovative 
projects that depend on economy to fund the development, but even that i 
personally avoid non-free at all cost even if they are better solution 
as i can't change them easily and they usually are prone to breaking and 
very difficult to repair.


> How do you feel about devices from suppliers such as Pine64, these 
allow for free software to be installed, but also for parts to be 
removed and replaced. -- Sutton


I argue that pinephone should be avoided at all cost as it has a 
built-in spyware and 
backdoor[https://www.pine64.org/2020/01/24/setting-the-record-straight-pinephone-misconceptions/].


> It would be good to be able to fabricate our own chips, Perhaps in 
the mean time we can come up with a subset of devices that exist now, so 
we can get behind them. -- Sutton


I am not against using rockchips and i think that projects alike are 
important for hardware freedom as they strip the built-in malware from 
an arm architecture and liberate it.


> we would need a major education shift to being reprogrammed with the 
maker (or more hacker) mindset,  we are rebuilding that, just slowly.  
-- Sutton


I am not hardware engineer i learned everything myself as the 
information needed is widely available and there are numerous 
communities that will guide you in your projects.


I do agree that the education system in the US and EU should be reworked 
to include topics from

Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

2022-01-27 Thread Paul Sutton via libreplanet-discuss




On 27/01/2022 04:13, 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. ]]]

   > 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.




How do you feel about devices from suppliers such as Pine64,  these 
allow for free software to be installed, but also for parts to be 
removed and replaced.


https://pine64.com/

It would be good to be able to fabricate our own chips,  Perhaps in the 
mean time we can come up with a subset of devices that exist now, so we 
can get behind them.


It is almost like we want to go back to the 70s where computers 
sometimes came in kit form that you soldered together,  just with a 
modern twist,   we would need a major education shift to being 
reprogrammed with the maker (or more hacker) mindset,  we are rebuilding 
that, just slowly.


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

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

2022-01-26 Thread Jacob Hrbek

> 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

2022-01-26 Thread Pen-Yuan Hsing



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

Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

2022-01-26 Thread Jacob Hrbek

> 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

2022-01-26 Thread Jean Louis

* 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

2022-01-26 Thread Paul Sutton via libreplanet-discuss

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

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. ]]]

  > 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.

-- 
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. ]]]

I support the right to repair movement.  However, when it deals
with computers and software, I find it disappointing because 
it demands only a part of what the Free Software Movement demands.

-- 
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. ]]]

  > But they are not very influencial and seems to all follow a road to
  > failure for various political and suppression issues or being sabotaged
  > by FSF,

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.

-- 
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. ]]]

 > "Essentially, "free hardware" means that you can make
 >  the hardware yourself."

I agree that that would be the ideal state of affairs, for hardware.
You should be able to make all the digital parts yourself, including
the chips, boards, and so on, and then construct them.

However, that world is a long way off.  Years of advances would be
required to get there.  It makes no sense trying to score today's
products based on how close they come to this -- none will come close.

I think https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html explains
this.

 > There is room for a "free (as in speech, aka libre) hardware"
 > movement but the historic moment is much closer to the earliest
 > days of GNU when people could see powerful-enough "personal computers"

I disagree.  In the early days of GNU, quite a few people had access
to computers powerful enough to build our own software and use it.
Mostly we did not _own_ those computers, but that didn't matter: we
could use them.  Each piece of GNU _was_ useful as soon as it was
released, or before.

We have a long way to go to reach such a situation for computer
hardware, where you can make the chips, boards, etc., and put them
together, and make a computer you can run GNU/Linun.
I don't expect to live to see it.



-- 
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 to speak of "free hardware", what, concretely, should it
mean?  Can you propose a definition?  I tried looking for one,
and couldn't find one that avoided confusion.

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.

However, if you propose to use the term "free hardware", how would you
define it?  Clearly, published _partial_ schematics cannot qualify for
that.

You're saying that these partial schematics are useful even though
they are not complete schematics.  That makes sense.  In addition, the
circuit board is made by one company; the chips are made by various
other companies.  For that reason too, it is useful to judge the board
separately from the chips.

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.

If you can come up with a good definition of "free hardware",
I might join in using it.


-- 
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. ]]]

  > So if FSF took a stronger stand on Free Hardware Designs

The FSF does not take _any_ stand on free hardware designs.  I made
that decision strategically: I decided to fight in the thearer of
free software, where our efforts could win advances in a period of years.

In the ideal future, all hardware designs should be free, just as all
software should be free.  Maybe the FSF could someday adopt that as its goal.

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?

I decided to encourage people to work towards free hardware designs,
but not include "all hardware designs free" in the criterion for a
computer acceptable to use today.

  > 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.

I can envision the FSF supporting catalogs to encourage and promote
products in which part of the hardware design is free.  Perhaps h-node
and RYF could mention that part of the design of a product is free,
when that is the case.

But it would not be part of the certification criteria for RYF.
The reasons why that depends only on software are just as valid now
as they were at the start.


-- 
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

2022-01-25 Thread Jacob Hrbek

> How far should guidelines for hardware go? Can it go as far as saying
it must be something you can build in a garage or can it be, designs
available but must send to away for fabrication? There are varying
degrees of freedom in one or the other. -- Ivie

I think that both being able to build the hardware "in a garage" and
being able to outsource the production is critical.

> Maybe we need a "Freedom in Hardware" foundation as a sister
organization to the Free Software foundation. -- Ivie

There is already lot of those:
1. http://fhf.it/
2.
https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/archive/2018/organizations/6276259533291520
3.
https://foundationdevices.com/2020/12/leading-an-open-hardware-renaissance/
4. etc.. etc..

But they are not very influencial and seems to all follow a road to
failure for various political and suppression issues or being sabotaged
by FSF, thus why i believe that to achieve hardware freedom it has to
start with FSF.

On 1/25/22 16
:31, Matt Ivie wrote:

How far should guidelines for hardware go? Can it go as far as saying it must 
be something you can build in a garage or can it be, designs available but must 
send to away for fabrication? There are varying degrees of freedom in one or 
the other.

--
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

2022-01-25 Thread Jacob Hrbek


> Modifying *integrated circuits* is virtually impossible -- Leah

I disagree on that. From my experience it's very possible, but it's
usually not economical as people lack the infrastructure and knowledge
to develop those at home, where crowd-sourcing and outsourcing the
fabrication to a 3rd party is feasible e.g. what DarkRISCV seems to be
leaning towards [https://github.com/darklife/darkriscv]

I agree that verilog files (basically custom C-inspired programming
language used to define the internal wiring of integrated circuits such
as CPU, example on
https://github.com/darklife/darkriscv/blob/159eb623cc47249cd6fa066571499dfdb9da3bcc/rtl/darkriscv.v)
are very important for hardware and software freedom.

And i want to also highlight that the production of custom CPUs is very
possible and somewhat economical and in terms of the EU In germany BOSCH
invested in major semi-conductor
factory[https://www.bosch.com/stories/bosch-chip-factory-dresden/] and
with
Taiwan (who has majority of semi-conductor market share) making
their own factory in
lithuania[https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4388461] so it's
projected that the economical cost of production for these chips will
significantly drop in the next 3 years.

FWIW to make it understandable to people who are not familiar with the
subject i see integrated circuit development accurately represented in
Minetest's Mesecons[https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?t=628] or
allegedly Rubystone [https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?t=17402]
(or proprietary minecraft redstone) if that helps anyone understanding
the development process.. Basically you have a pulse that in set amount
of time reaches set amount of conductor lenght that you then work with.

Video showing the development of 8-bit computer in minetest's mesecons
for reference: https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=tVAcJHHmkIA

On 1/25/22 13:48, Leah Rowe wrote:

Modifying *integrated
circuits*

is virtually impossible

--
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

2022-01-25 Thread Thomas Lord

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."

  What I think is envisioned here is a world in which hardware
  manufacture is for many practical purposes driven by software:
  designer/programmers write code that drives production of
  hardware.

  Additionally, the production capacity that inputs raw materials
  plus software, and spits out hardware, is envisioned as (for
  practical purposes, at least) ubiquitous.   For example, if
  I have read about a particular chip design I'd like to try,
  I can just head to the nearest fabrication shop -- one of
  many that can be found all around the world in many places.
  Same with PC boards, etc.

  When this "gist" is stated in terms of particulars like
  "verilog files" or "gerber design files" the concretization
  is good for informal description, but not great for putting
  "hardware freedom" next to "software freedom" as a clear
  set of principles that are fairly robust over long stretches
  of history independent of changes to underlying production
  technology.  For example, "software freedom" is not a concept
  that depends on the concept of a "program written in C".  It
  applies equally well to, say, programs written for a fancy
  scientific calculator, etc.   Defining hardware freedom

  Similarly, I think it would be worth spending some effort
  to come up with appropriate, clean, historically robust
  abstractions -- analogous to the four freedoms -- for hardware.

+ Hardware state of the world compared to early GNU days

  With that said, the situation is very different from software
  freedom.   Software freedom as a category, as a concept, as
  the focus of a movement came into being in reaction to a
  sudden actual, rapidly expanding ubiquity of programmable
  hardware.  Already when I first heard about GNU software,
  thanks to being on a typical university campus, I could
  download, compile, study, modify, and above all make good
  use of it.  In fewer than 10 years after, everyone who could
  afford a personal computer could do the same, easily.
  Hardware manufacture is not at that stage, not quite, but
  could possibly get a lot closer in coming years.  It's not
  assured -- but it seems to be technologically possible, at least.

  There is room for a "free (as in speech, aka libre) hardware"
  movement but the historic moment is much closer to the earliest
  days of GNU when people could see powerful-enough "personal computers"
  coming on the horizon, but they distinctly were not yet in
  existence.   At this stage, getting fundamental, simple, historically
  robust (i.e. suitably abstract), definitions clear would likely
  be very helpful.

  -t

On 2022-01-25 04:48, Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 23:16:36 -0500
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. ]]]

  > 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.

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

(this last one is something that the FSF currently provides exceptions
for in RYF)

Essentially, "free hardware" means that you can make the hardware
yourself. You also get the most freedom possible to modify your
existing hardware. Contrary to what you believe, it's actually possible
to perform a lot of modifications on hardware. Modifying *integrated
circuits* is virtually impossible, but printed circuit boards are
another matter altogether. I can show you the dark side in that world,
and you'd be amazed what's possible.

A "boardview" file is like a schematic, but it shows the exact shape
and size of the board, and where everything is on the board. It shows
how all the little connections hook up. You can use the "openboardview"
software to browse a board this way. This is useful in repair of the
board, because you can easily see everything on the

Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

2022-01-25 Thread Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 07:31:11 -0800
Matt Ivie  wrote:
> Here is an interesting case where someone is fabricating processors
> themselves:
> 
> https://www.wired.com/story/22-year-old-builds-chips-parents-garage/

This changes everything. Thank you for linking this!

Richard, you should definitely look at this!

> 
> It's limited but improving with each iteration. Even then I don't
> know if he can scale this and did have to buy and repair old
> equipment that was at one time very expensive. 
> 
> How far should guidelines for hardware go? Can it go as far as saying
> it must be something you can build in a garage or can it be, designs
> available but must send to away for fabrication? There are varying
> degrees of freedom in one or the other.
> 
> Maybe we need a "Freedom in Hardware" foundation as a sister
> organization to the Free Software foundation.
> 

The main problem is deciding on a term that captures people's
attention. Right now, I would just call it "free hardware and software".

-- 
Leah Rowe 
Company Director & Libreboot developer

Do you know you have rights?
The right to privacy, free speech, the right to read
and the right to learn.

Defend freedom. Use free (free as in freedom) software.
Spread freedom. Tell everyone you know about it!
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Minifree Ltd, trading as Ministry of Freedom.
Registered in England, registration No. 9361826
VAT Registration No. GB202190462
Minifree Ltd, 19 Hilton Road, Canvey Island
Essex SS8 9QA, United Kingdom
United Kingdom

pgpYiq8rq1tKX.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

2022-01-25 Thread Matt Ivie

On January 25, 2022 5:18:17 AM PST, Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss 
 wrote:
>
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 13:03:20 +
>Leah Rowe  wrote:
>
>> It's only in the last 40 years that things have gone down-hill. In the
>> 70s, you could open up your electronics and there would be schematics
>> showing you how everything was put together. It's possible that
>> you could send in a device for repair, but you could do it yourself
>> too. Your neighbour Jimmy could do it for you. This is no longer the
>> case.
>
>By the way, this problem (lack of ability to repair) is not just with
>computers, but many other things aswell. Cars, appliances, you name it.
>Louis Rossman recently did a video on this about the hot water heater in
>his new home:
>
>https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=mgTlFaHTFrI
>
>Richard, I'm advising you to actually watch a bunch of Louis Rossman
>videos on the subject of Right to Repair. He may very well convince
>you. His channel:
>
>https://vid.puffyan.us/channel/UCl2mFZoRqjw_ELax4Yisf6w
>
>He does macbook repair. I know, Apple is evil right? The fact that he's
>fixing macbooks isn't important (it just pays his rent), but he is
>fighting to restore the repair culture that used to exist in the world.
>The idea that, when you purchase something, you own it.
>
>I think his Right to Repair movement is no different spiritually than
>Free Software. It's the same kind of mentality, and the same kinds of
>people. In fact, people from our movement often get involved in right
>to repair, and vice versa.
>
>The connection already exists. My priority is to strengthen that
>connection because, for reasons I previously explained, I think it's
>critical to software freedom.
>

Here is an interesting case where someone is fabricating processors themselves:

https://www.wired.com/story/22-year-old-builds-chips-parents-garage/

It's limited but improving with each iteration. Even then I don't know if he 
can scale this and did have to buy and repair old equipment that was at one 
time very expensive. 

How far should guidelines for hardware go? Can it go as far as saying it must 
be something you can build in a garage or can it be, designs available but must 
send to away for fabrication? There are varying degrees of freedom in one or 
the other.

Maybe we need a "Freedom in Hardware" foundation as a sister organization to 
the Free Software foundation.

--
Under the sky, there is but one family.
 --Bruce Lee.

___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

2022-01-25 Thread Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 13:14:16 +
Jacob Hrbek  wrote:

>  > Modifying *integrated circuits* is virtually impossible -- Leah
> 

(I clarified in a follow-up email that modifying the final assembly is
hard, but that the verilog and such are more practical to modify. I
didn't address fabrication though, in previous emails)

> I disagree on that. From my experience it's very possible, but it's
> usually not economical as people lack the infrastructure and knowledge
> to develop those at home, where crowd-sourcing and outsourcing the
> fabrication to a 3rd party is feasible e.g. what DarkRISCV seems to be
> leaning towards [https://github.com/darklife/darkriscv]
> 
> I agree that verilog files (basically custom C-inspired programming
> language used to define the internal wiring of integrated circuits
> such as CPU, example on
> https://github.com/darklife/darkriscv/blob/159eb623cc47249cd6fa066571499dfdb9da3bcc/rtl/darkriscv.v)
> are very important for hardware and software freedom.
> 

I've bookmarked this. Thank you for showing it. I'm interested in RISCV.

> And i want to also highlight that the production of custom CPUs is
> very possible and somewhat economical and in terms of the EU In
> germany BOSCH invested in major semi-conductor
> factory[https://www.bosch.com/stories/bosch-chip-factory-dresden/] and
> with
>  Taiwan (who has majority of semi-conductor market share) making
> their own factory in
> lithuania[https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4388461] so it's
> projected that the economical cost of production for these chips will
> significantly drop in the next 3 years.
> 
> FWIW to make it understandable to people who are not familiar with the
> subject i see integrated circuit development accurately represented in
> Minetest's Mesecons[https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?t=628] or
> allegedly Rubystone [https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?t=17402]
> (or proprietary minecraft redstone) if that helps anyone understanding
> the development process.. Basically you have a pulse that in set
> amount of time reaches set amount of conductor lenght that you then
> work with.
> 
> Video showing the development of 8-bit computer in minetest's mesecons
> for reference: https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=tVAcJHHmkIA

This is really cool. Thank you for linking all of these.

Europe getting its own fabs is also great.

> 
> On 1/25/22 13:48, Leah Rowe wrote:
> > Modifying *integrated
> > circuits*
> is virtually impossible
> 
> --
> Jacob Hrbek
> 


-- 
Leah Rowe 
Company Director & Libreboot developer

Do you know you have rights?
The right to privacy, free speech, the right to read
and the right to learn.

Defend freedom. Use free (free as in freedom) software.
Spread freedom. Tell everyone you know about it!
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Minifree Ltd, trading as Ministry of Freedom.
Registered in England, registration No. 9361826
VAT Registration No. GB202190462
Minifree Ltd, 19 Hilton Road, Canvey Island
Essex SS8 9QA, United Kingdom
United Kingdom


pgplIUZIuy4Xu.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

2022-01-25 Thread Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 13:14:16 +
Jacob Hrbek  wrote:

>  > Modifying *integrated circuits* is virtually impossible -- Leah
> 
> I disagree on that. From my experience it's very possible, but it's
> usually not economical as people lack the infrastructure and knowledge
> to develop those at home, where crowd-sourcing and outsourcing the
> fabrication to a 3rd party is feasible e.g. what DarkRISCV seems to be
> leaning towards [https://github.com/darklife/darkriscv]

Yeah, sorry, I clarified in a follow-up email that a fully assembled IC
is not very easy to modify. I was referring to the assembly, not the
design.




pgpi7DMNBVxtz.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

2022-01-25 Thread Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 13:03:20 +
Leah Rowe  wrote:

> It's only in the last 40 years that things have gone down-hill. In the
> 70s, you could open up your electronics and there would be schematics
> showing you how everything was put together. It's possible that
> you could send in a device for repair, but you could do it yourself
> too. Your neighbour Jimmy could do it for you. This is no longer the
> case.

By the way, this problem (lack of ability to repair) is not just with
computers, but many other things aswell. Cars, appliances, you name it.
Louis Rossman recently did a video on this about the hot water heater in
his new home:

https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=mgTlFaHTFrI

Richard, I'm advising you to actually watch a bunch of Louis Rossman
videos on the subject of Right to Repair. He may very well convince
you. His channel:

https://vid.puffyan.us/channel/UCl2mFZoRqjw_ELax4Yisf6w

He does macbook repair. I know, Apple is evil right? The fact that he's
fixing macbooks isn't important (it just pays his rent), but he is
fighting to restore the repair culture that used to exist in the world.
The idea that, when you purchase something, you own it.

I think his Right to Repair movement is no different spiritually than
Free Software. It's the same kind of mentality, and the same kinds of
people. In fact, people from our movement often get involved in right
to repair, and vice versa.

The connection already exists. My priority is to strengthen that
connection because, for reasons I previously explained, I think it's
critical to software freedom.

-- 
Think for yourself. Live free!

pgpU168tOqTG7.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

2022-01-25 Thread Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss

Hi Richard,

On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 23:16:52 -0500
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. ]]]
> 
>   > 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.

If you want companies to care about freedom, you've got to start with
hardware. I say this, because hardware really is no different than
software. In both cases, it's something that companies consider as
*their property*, but there was once a better time when the culture of
repair was much stronger. The "make do and mend" mentality was once
dominant in electronics, and engineering in general.

It's only in the last 40 years that things have gone down-hill. In the
70s, you could open up your electronics and there would be schematics
showing you how everything was put together. It's possible that
you could send in a device for repair, but you could do it yourself
too. Your neighbour Jimmy could do it for you. This is no longer the
case.

The mentality that makes someone care about *repair* is the same
mentality that cases someone to care about free softwrae. Software and
hardware are two sides of a coin.

I do think that you and the FSF should pursue this more rigorously. I'm
surprised that you haven't done so to such an extent, especially since
you have Gerald Sussman on your board of directors, who if I'm not
mistaken is head of electronics at MIT.

> 
> 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"?

True freedom means you have the gerber files and verilog so that you
can make your own board, plus chips.

However, freedom comes at different levels. I would say yes, you do
have some freedoms even if the schematics are available but non-free.
In many cases, manufacturers make such documentation *redistributable*
even if modification is not allowed.

However, even in such cases, there's no way they can stop you from
modifying the circuit board, and you do have a lot of freedoms there.
Even if you only have datasheets for the ICs, or even no datasheets,
you have a lot of freedom potentially.

> 
> 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?
> 

I gave you my definition of free hardware, in my previous post on this
thread.

>   > > 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.

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?

Why invent limitations for yourself? I say we should apply ourselves
instead, and that's exactly what some of us are doing.

When it does come "necessary" in the future, you must know: building
hardware takes time. Would you not rather we be ready now, for when
that day comes?

(to be clear, I think that day is now. I think we need free hardware
now. we deserve it, for the same reason we deserve free software)

-- 
Think for yourself. Live free!

pgpEdigRq1C2H.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

2022-01-25 Thread Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 12:48:36 +
Leah Rowe  wrote:

> Modifying *integrated
> circuits* is virtually impossible

I want to clarify that I mean once they are built. With verilog source,
you can modify microprocessors quite easily, to then build your own.

See: RISCV project. Completely free ISA for making your own CPU.
There's also j-core, which I've been told about (free implementation of
the SuperH processors).

-- 
Leah Rowe 
Company Director & Libreboot developer

Do you know you have rights?
The right to privacy, free speech, the right to read
and the right to learn.

Defend freedom. Use free (free as in freedom) software.
Spread freedom. Tell everyone you know about it!
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Minifree Ltd, trading as Ministry of Freedom.
Registered in England, registration No. 9361826
VAT Registration No. GB202190462
Minifree Ltd, 19 Hilton Road, Canvey Island
Essex SS8 9QA, United Kingdom
United Kingdom

pgpwRGUBYhzSW.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

2022-01-25 Thread Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss

On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 23:16:36 -0500
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. ]]]
> 
>   > 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.

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

(this last one is something that the FSF currently provides exceptions
for in RYF)

Essentially, "free hardware" means that you can make the hardware
yourself. You also get the most freedom possible to modify your
existing hardware. Contrary to what you believe, it's actually possible
to perform a lot of modifications on hardware. Modifying *integrated
circuits* is virtually impossible, but printed circuit boards are
another matter altogether. I can show you the dark side in that world,
and you'd be amazed what's possible.

A "boardview" file is like a schematic, but it shows the exact shape
and size of the board, and where everything is on the board. It shows
how all the little connections hook up. You can use the "openboardview"
software to browse a board this way. This is useful in repair of the
board, because you can easily see everything on the board. The
boardview file will have all the same component names as the schematic.
The schematic is better for understanding how each circuit works, cross
referenced with the boardview which tells you how to modify/repair a
circuit board.

It's often possible to make modifications to a circuit board in useful
ways, even if you don't have the ability to fab your own chips. For
example, on ThinkPad T400 mainboards I regularly replace the default
boot flash with bigger flash, and modify the board to accept quad-core
CPUs. On the ThinkPad X230 there's a mod where you can piggyback off of
the built-in displayport channel on the docking connected, and add eDP,
replacing the default LVDS connection for internal monitors. These are
useful mods, and schematics+boardview file enable such mods to be done
more quickly.

-- 
Leah Rowe 
Company Director & Libreboot developer

Do you know you have rights?
The right to privacy, free speech, the right to read
and the right to learn.

Defend freedom. Use free (free as in freedom) software.
Spread freedom. Tell everyone you know about it!
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Minifree Ltd, trading as Ministry of Freedom.
Registered in England, registration No. 9361826
VAT Registration No. GB202190462
Minifree Ltd, 19 Hilton Road, Canvey Island
Essex SS8 9QA, United Kingdom
United Kingdom

pgpn9K3hndU5S.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

2022-01-24 Thread Richard Stallman

[[[ 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

2022-01-24 Thread Richard Stallman

[[[ 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

2022-01-24 Thread Jacob Hrbek

> 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

2022-01-24 Thread Jacob Hrbek

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)

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

2022-01-24 Thread Paul Sutton via libreplanet-discuss


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

2022-01-24 Thread Matt Ivie

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

2022-01-24 Thread Pen-Yuan Hsing

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)

2022-01-24 Thread Jean Louis

* 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

2022-01-24 Thread Paul Sutton via libreplanet-discuss



-- 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

2022-01-24 Thread Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss

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

2022-01-24 Thread Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss

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

RE : Ideas to promote making and using free hardware designs (was Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware)

2022-01-23 Thread Dr Andrew A. Adams

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.

Arthur,

This isn't my field, but I thought I'd seen something that at least fills 
part of this chain. The OpenBuilds-CAM and OpenBuilds-CONTROL software are 
AGPL
https://github.com/OpenBuilds/OpenBuilds-CAM
https://github.com/OpenBuilds/OpenBuilds-CONTROL

Are these not part of the toolchain you're talking about here? The CAM 
software description says it takes SVG, DXF or Bitmap and produces GCODE for 
sending to CONTROL, which controls some machines.

This does not seem to meet all of the toolchain you need, but it seems to 
fill at least part of it.

-- 
Dr Andrew A Adams  a...@meiji.ac.jp
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan   http://www.a-cubed.info/

___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

2022-01-23 Thread Richard Stallman

[[[ 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 to do this?  You know more than
they know about this task, and maybe you have time to do 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.

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.

Free hardware designs are desirable, and may be necessary in a
possible distant future, but not very soon.

-- 
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

2022-01-23 Thread Jacob Hrbek

> 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.

--
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: RE : Ideas to promote making and using free hardware designs (was Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware)

2022-01-21 Thread Jean Louis

* Jacob Hrbek  [2022-01-21 18:22]:
> I am strictly against paying for freedom,

Never in the history of mankind freedom was every free of charge.

We all pay for freedom, and we never get it. And if anyting is worth,
it is worth paying for freedom.

> but i am not against limiting freedom until the development is paid

WTF? Am I on the wrong mailing list or you?

> assuming that the freedom to study and improve is not violated
> (freedom to redistribute can require fee for commercial use)

If you require fee for commercial use that is not free software by
definition, thus also outside of the scope of subjects on this mailing
list. Feel free to exchange though.

> and the party is mandated to be transparent about their financing
> and license enforces that "when the development cost is paid then
> this license automatically removes all restrictions on use and
> redistribute" (would be a great if GPLv4 had this clause).

Well, it will never be. But keep dreaming.

> That said I would like to highlight the case of Purism with Librem 5
> which allegedly does this approach,

I did not see they do that approach, maybe you misunderstood
something. I find Purism and their hardware some of best attempts to
come to free software with free hardware in the world. So their
project is just to be supported. They are smaller company, unlike IBM
or other hardware companies, and their products will cost rather more
than less. That is quite understandable. Try to make computer yourself
and you will understand.

> but they are not transparent

My impression is quite contrary, they are so much transparent.

> and are likely abusing their trust by constantly hiring new people
> to claim that the development cost increased to infinity which is
> terrible for user freedom.

That is generalization, I cannot say I condone that neither I agree to
that. I do not see problem with user freedom in Purism. Can you be
more specific?

Then also if you wish to tell something to Purism, why don't you tell
it specific to them?


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: RE : Ideas to promote making and using free hardware designs (was Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware)

2022-01-21 Thread Jacob Hrbek


> Perhaps there could be a way to work with the hardware makers and
free cad developers to create a similar set up where for a reasonable
cost you can obtain the required drivers, firmware etc. -- Torrey

I am strictly against paying for freedom, but i am not against limiting
freedom until the development is paid assuming that the freedom to study
and improve is not violated (freedom to redistribute can require fee for
commercial use) and the party is mandated to be transparent about their
financing and license enforces that "when the development cost is paid
then this license automatically removes all restrictions on use and
redistribute" (would be a great if GPLv4 had this clause).

That said I would like to highlight the case of Purism with Librem 5
which allegedly does this approach, but they are not transparent and are
likely abusing their trust by constantly hiring new people to claim that
the development cost increased to infinity which is terrible for
user
freedom.

On 1/21/22 10:20, Paul Sutton via libreplanet-discuss wrote:

Perhaps there could be a way to work with the hardware makers and free
cad developers to create a similar set up where for a reasonable cost
you can obtain the required drivers, firmware etc.


--
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

2022-01-21 Thread Jacob Hrbek

> These three are equivalent because, in all three, we are equally
helplsss. In theory, in case 3 reverse engineering would be able to fix
it. But we can't do any reverse engineering -- we can encourage people
to do such it. -- RMS

I agree that complicated components such as processors can be
problematic as they are very often very difficult to review, change and
fabricate but I don't align with it being a reason to consider Free
Hardware Designs ("FHD") as not worthy of supporting, because as long as
the designs are GPLv3-compatible then they can be changed to use more
appropriate components.

In terms of processors RISC-V would be my quick answer for the
definitive user-freedom as they are open-source and can be fabricated
using a modified 3D printer or custom CNC machine (majority of CNC
machines are GPLv3 compatible and easily changable for this task), but
the process is complicated and i am not yet an expert on the subject to
represent it.

That said I don't feel like the use of processors is a freedom issue in
general thanks to projects such as Rockchip (Arduino, etc..) that make
the proprietary ARM architecture malware-free to be considered safe
while providing the required components to use the processor (firmware,
bootloader, documentation, linux patches, toolkit, etc..) under
GPLv3-compatible licenses [https://github.com/rockchip-linux] which then
can be declared as safe and through an independent security review with
thanks to the provided tools the results can be verified.

---

But again the main issue about which i want to make a case here is that
FSF supports and endorses proprietary hardware designs at the expense of
Free Hardware Designs and their developers + that GPLv3 is not made with
hardware and is problematic for that use.

---

About Creality the required informations are not public (to my
knowledge), but this is from what i was told, researched and found relevant:

Creality Ender-3 and Original Prusa i3 are both forks of Prusa Mendel
(https://reprap.org/wiki/Prusa_Mendel) which is a fork of RepRap Mendel
(https://reprap.org/wiki/Mendel).

Allegedly this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyVM3-v84I0
inspired Creality to take the Prusa Mendel design and re-engineer it for
production to create Creality Ender-3 which was forked by Josef Průša to
create the Original Prusa i3 (or prusa was first and creality forked it
and optimized it for production cost).

So all of these printers and their forks were forked from RepRap Mendel
so they have to follow GPLv3, but they all fail to credit all the authors.

So assuming that RepRap is the copyright holder, I found this on the
subject:

I was provided a response of a RepRap representative on their forum
explaining most of the issues with GPLv3 and problems with the
enforcement of FHD: https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?33,40874

In short my summary of the discussion would be that GPLv3 is not worded
and made for hardware as it lacks the required protections to enforce
and maintain the values of four freedoms for hardware.

There is also a statement by OSHW/OSWR on GPL that i find relevant, but
note that OSHW/OSWR are seemingly not aligned with 4 freedoms:
https://ohwr.org/project/cernohl/wikis/faq#q-why-not-use-existing-licences-such-as-gpl-and-any-in-the-family-of-creative-commons-licences

And relevant KiCAD (FOSS EDA) forum post:
https://forum.kicad.info/t/using-the-l-gpl-as-an-open-source-hardware-license/1925/2

On 1/19/22 05:16, Richard Stallman wrote:

You're right that the two are similar. But there is a crucial
difference. We can get around the problems at the level above the
processor level by writing software. We can't deal with the problems
inside the processor that way.

Suppose a processor has malicious functionalities. There are three
ways it is likely to be implementd:

1. By unchangeable circuits.

2. By firmware in ROM.

3. By secret firmware in RAM.

These three are equivalent because, in all three, we are equally
helplsss. In theory, in case 3 reverse engineering would be able to
fix it. But we can't do any reverse engineering -- we can encourage
people to do such it.

Thus, we treat all three cases the same.

--
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: RE : Ideas to promote making and using free hardware designs (was Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware)

2022-01-21 Thread Jean Louis

* Arthur Torrey  [2022-01-21 04:09]:
> An excellent post by Paul Fernhout, but I see one really HUGE problem, namely 
> that I don't know of ANY Free Software tool or tool-chain that can get a 
> person from 'beer-mat' to 'g-code'  (For those not familiar with the CNC 
> world, g-code is the 'assembly language' of the CNC manufacturing world...  
> 
> 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.

OpenSCAD - elegant export to G-code from w/in OpenSCAD?
https://forum.openscad.org/elegant-export-to-G-code-from-w-in-OpenSCAD-td4037.html

Maybe there are some references there.

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: RE : Ideas to promote making and using free hardware designs (was Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware)

2022-01-21 Thread Paul Sutton via libreplanet-discuss




On 21/01/2022 01:05, Arthur Torrey wrote:

An excellent post by Paul Fernhout, but I see one really HUGE problem, namely 
that I don't know of ANY Free Software tool or tool-chain that can get a person 
from 'beer-mat' to 'g-code'  (For those not familiar with the CNC world, g-code 
is the 'assembly language' of the CNC manufacturing world...

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.

Instead I have to use Proprietary CAD packages (some of which have limited 
'Free as in Beer' offerings) to make proprietary format files in order to 
generate (proprietary) tool-paths to feed to a (proprietary) pre-processor that 
turns them into machine appropriate g-code  (Ironically, at least one of 
the machines I'm running that g-code on is using LinuxCNC as a controller).  I 
haven't even found a path that would let me move a design from a Free CAD 
package into one of the proprietary packages to do the tool-path steps.

For electronics stuff, KiCAD is amazingly good, I've heard professional board 
designers say that it can go head to head against the $10K / seat commercial 
programs.  I haven't done anything in the 3D printing world, but I've heard 
there are some packages that are at least competent for that.  However there is 
NOTHING I've been able to find that is capable of even basic CNC machining 
g-code, let alone anything close to modern High Speed Machining (as done by 
things like HSM-Works)

As such, Paul's proposals for OSCOMAK and other shared collections of design 
data seem like they would be of little use if there is no way to get the 
collected data into a new design that can be manufactured

I've been urging the FSF to put CAD onto the 'high priority' list for years, 
but so far no luck...

ART

--
Arthur Torrey - 
---



As I understand it,  when the source code to doom was released, the 
original levels stayed as non-free with a paid option to get them.


Perhaps there could be a way to work with the hardware makers and free 
cad developers to create a similar set up where for a reasonable cost 
you can obtain the required drivers, firmware etc.


FreeCAD would remain free as in freedom, if you wanted to use it with 
specific hardware you could do so.


Just a thought,   Ideally they would make their software available for 
free software available for BSD, Linux etc.   If MacOS is based on BSD 
this can't be that difficult to port over surely.


So this is a sort of meet in the middle approach that may work,  as long 
as we, as a community respect the copyright,  and pay for these 
components that should keep the copyright holders happy.


The topic of funding projects came up at the meeting on Thursday 20th. 
So this idea is partly influenced by that and what happened with games 
such as Doom.


Regards

Paul



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

RE : Ideas to promote making and using free hardware designs (was Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware)

2022-01-20 Thread Arthur Torrey

An excellent post by Paul Fernhout, but I see one really HUGE problem, namely 
that I don't know of ANY Free Software tool or tool-chain that can get a person 
from 'beer-mat' to 'g-code'  (For those not familiar with the CNC world, g-code 
is the 'assembly language' of the CNC manufacturing world...  

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.

Instead I have to use Proprietary CAD packages (some of which have limited 
'Free as in Beer' offerings) to make proprietary format files in order to 
generate (proprietary) tool-paths to feed to a (proprietary) pre-processor that 
turns them into machine appropriate g-code  (Ironically, at least one of 
the machines I'm running that g-code on is using LinuxCNC as a controller).  I 
haven't even found a path that would let me move a design from a Free CAD 
package into one of the proprietary packages to do the tool-path steps.

For electronics stuff, KiCAD is amazingly good, I've heard professional board 
designers say that it can go head to head against the $10K / seat commercial 
programs.  I haven't done anything in the 3D printing world, but I've heard 
there are some packages that are at least competent for that.  However there is 
NOTHING I've been able to find that is capable of even basic CNC machining 
g-code, let alone anything close to modern High Speed Machining (as done by 
things like HSM-Works)

As such, Paul's proposals for OSCOMAK and other shared collections of design 
data seem like they would be of little use if there is no way to get the 
collected data into a new design that can be manufactured

I've been urging the FSF to put CAD onto the 'high priority' list for years, 
but so far no luck...

ART

--
Arthur Torrey - 
---

___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Ideas to promote making and using free hardware designs (was Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware)

2022-01-20 Thread Paul D. Fernhout

On 1/18/22 11:16 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:

What could someone do, that would go beyond publishing
https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html, that would help
promote making and using free hardware designs? I don't know. Do you
have any ideas?

If you find a good idea, maybe the FSF could do it. Or maybe you
could do it. Maybe you could do it, and the FSF could host the info
to call attention to it.

The first step is, what would be helpful to do?

OSCOMAK is an idea I put together over twenty years ago (originally as a
pre-proposal for a NASA grant after talking to Al Globus) to create
designs for a free physical infrastructure:

https://www.oscomak.net/
"The OSCOMAK project will foster a community in which many interested
individuals will contribute to the creation of a distributed global
repository of manufacturing knowledge about past, present and future
processes, materials, and products. OSCOMAK stands for "OSCOMAK Semantic
Community On Manufactured Artifacts and Know-how"."

I mentioned it to you (RMS) back when it was getting started and we
discussed related licensing issues which you also ran by a FSF lawyer
(thanks). But I can't say it ever got off the ground for a variety of
reasons. But conceptually I still feel it is the right way to go as a
comprehensive approach.

=== More details on the general idea of expanding maker culture

The roots of my interest in that go back to the 1980s:
https://pdfernhout.net/sunrise-sustainable-technology-ventures.html#Notes_on_Technology_Library
https://pdfernhout.net/princeton-graduate-school-plans.html

The biggest change in my own thinking over the years is to realize the
idea of promoting *standards* for interchanging free information is more
important than promoting specific free *implementations* (even as we do
need free implementations).

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) would be a
natural for defining and promoting such standards. They have ventured
into that area in some ways. NASA also has an almost obsessive interest
in sets of procedures (for good reasons), and also in theory should
support such efforts to standardize the format for free procedures.

One might think either big government agency would develop and promote
this kind of free design concept in a big way, but I have not seen it.
Perhaps this is in part because such efforts may quickly get entangled
with the proprietary "supply chain" interests of large commercial
contractors such organizations frequently interact with? That may be
changing though as the free software and design idea spreads? In
general, creating a free "supply chain" of free designs is another way
to look at the issue.

A summary of a tangentially related idea I proposed back around 2011 is
here (the idea page itself seems to have bitrotted and is not in
archive.org):

https://web.archive.org/web/20150514025613/http://pcast.ideascale.com/a/pmd/449446-8319
"Build 21000 flexible fabrication facilities across the USA
Being able to make things is an important part of prosperity, but that
capability (and related confidence) has been slipping away in the USA.
The USA needs more large neighborhood shops with a lot of flexible
machine tools. The US government should fund the construction of 21,000
flexible fabrication facilities across the USA at a cost of US$50
billion, places where any American can go to learn about and use CNC
equipment ..."

There actually was a related legislative proposal back then but it did
not go anywhere (and I am not saying it was inspired by that idea I
suggested, just coincidentally similar at a much smaller scale to
support creating a few makerspaces). The connection of makerspaces to
the free design idea is that ideally such makerspaces would share a
common database of free designs and also free software to use in making
free designs.

There are simpler versions of the OSCOMAK-ish database idea people have
created that focus on collecting free (and non-free) designs.
Thingiverse is one example for collecting designs for 3D-printable
objects. Appropedia is another which talks about appropriate technolgoy
designs. And there are others. There are even various (unfree and free)
computer games have collections of (virtual) designs for them
(Minecraft, Stormworks, Rigs of Rods, etc.).

But repositories of such designs generally don't emphasize creating a
system to help analyze how designs and procedures depend on each other
(a key idea of OSCOMAK). So, the repositories of designs don't generally
consider that you need a certain tool to easily make a machine to make a
part to do a procedure that ensures the quality of a product (similar to
software packages requiring each other). My bias there was an interest
in creating more self-reliant resilient communities (whether in space,
in deserts, in the ocean, on Antarctica, in cities, in rural areas,
etc), so being able to understand the degree of "closure"

Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

2022-01-19 Thread Richard Stallman

[[[ 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. ]]]

  > > I though you would say that so i filled `gnu.org #1798270`
  > > (https://github.com/Homers3D/Tevo-Tornado/issues/5),

It looks like someone may be violating the GPL on a program I never
heard of.  If that is true, I hope the copyright holders get a lawyer
and take steps to bring the violation to an end.

The FSF can't do anything special about this, and neither can I.
What can be done is to suggest that the copyright holders ask a lawyer for
guidance.

-- 
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

2022-01-19 Thread Theodore Somers

On 1/18/22 20:16, 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. ]]]

   > I think that none in Free Software would support being forced to use
   > proprietary software filled with malware that injects malware in their
   > free software with hardware designs it is the exact same situation just
   > instead instead of "compiler" you have "fabricators".

You're right that the two are similar.  But there is a crucial
difference.  We can get around the problems at the level above the
processor level by writing software.  We can't deal with the problems
inside the processor that way.

Suppose a processor has malicious functionalities.  There are three
ways it is likely to be implementd:

1. By unchangeable circuits.

2. By firmware in ROM.

3. By secret firmware in RAM.

These three are equivalent because, in all three, we are equally
helplsss.  In theory, in case 3 reverse engineering would be able to
fix it.  But we can't do any reverse engineering -- we can encourage
people to do such it.

Thus, we treat all three cases the same.

Case 2 may also be fixable if the rom chip is on the board (depending on 
how difficult it would be to replace without damaging the rest of the 
system). If it is feasible to replace the rom, then it would simply be a 
problem of reverse engineering.

___
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. ]]]

  > I though you would say that so i filled `gnu.org #1798270` 

I don't access that RT data base, but whatever you sent there should
reach me eventually.

  > (https://github.com/Homers3D/Tevo-Tornado/issues/5), please consider 

I will fetch that and look.

-- 
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. ]]]

  > I think that none in Free Software would support being forced to use 
  > proprietary software filled with malware that injects malware in their 
  > free software with hardware designs it is the exact same situation just 
  > instead instead of "compiler" you have "fabricators".

You're right that the two are similar.  But there is a crucial
difference.  We can get around the problems at the level above the
processor level by writing software.  We can't deal with the problems
inside the processor that way.

Suppose a processor has malicious functionalities.  There are three
ways it is likely to be implementd:

1. By unchangeable circuits.

2. By firmware in ROM.

3. By secret firmware in RAM.

These three are equivalent because, in all three, we are equally
helplsss.  In theory, in case 3 reverse engineering would be able to
fix it.  But we can't do any reverse engineering -- we can encourage
people to do such it.

Thus, we treat all three cases the same.





-- 
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. ]]]

  >  >  and it would make the certification program almost a no-op. -- RMS

  > I disagree that it would make it a almost no-op as there is a lot of FHD 
  > developers that would probably be more then happy to get their designs 
  > certified,

I think I see another misunderstanding here, which has become visible
because you've adopted my suggestion to talk about "free hardware designs"
rather than "free hardware".

RYF certifies hardware products for sale.

The aim of RYF certification is to guide people in buying hardware
products that won't require nonfree software included in their system
loads.  This is helpful in practice because it is hard to tell whether
a product fits that criterion.  People who are not hardware wizards
(and that includes me) would find this very difficult to check.  We
would need to study a lot, to even be able to try to check.  Thus, RYF
helps us in a very practical way.

I don't see that you have come across any flaw in the RYF program,
Rather, I think you are trying to achieve another goal: to promote
(perhaps by certifying) free hardware designs.

That goal is good, but has nothing to do with RYF.  That goal might be
a reason to do some additional thing, but that additional thing would
not be anything like RYF.

What should that additional thing be?  Not certification, I think.  I
don't think it would particularly help matters for some organization
to "certify" free hardware designs.  The reason is that you can easily
tell for yourself whether a hardware design is free.  Just look at
whether it carries a free license.

The hard thing to check would be whether the design is a good one.
Checking that takes hardware design expertise ;-{.  We don't have any.

What could someone do, that would go beyond publishing
https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html, that would help
promote making and using free hardware designs?  I don't know.  Do you
have any ideas?

If you find a good idea, maybe the FSF could do it.  Or maybe you
could do it.  Maybe you could do it, and the FSF could host the info
to call attention to it.

The first step is, what would be helpful to 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