RFC: open license for hardware designs
Hello all, I'm interested in constructing an Open Source license, probably along the lines of the (L)GPL, that can be applied to *hardware designs* rather than the traditional software. Indeed, many parts of the modern hardware design process (for digital electronics, anyway) can be likened to the assembly or compilation of a high-level specification/schematic (source) into a form suitable for production on a manufacturing line (executable). Thus, I'm writing to license-discuss to request people's thoughts on this issue. My starting point is to replace "source code" with "hardware design" and "executable" with "physical instantiation" in the GPL, and will post such a thing some days' time. In the meantime I'd like to hear other ideas on this topic. Some snags I can think of: - we may want to be more sophisticated about the different levels we're applying our limitations to. It's reasonable in current technology to make a distinction between chip and board level designs; we may want to say something specific about what can cross from one level to another. - What counts as 'linking' needs careful thought. Presumedly on an "LGPL'd" motherboard, it would be acceptable to add a proprietary subsystem that communicated over a standard protocol (e.g. the pci bus) but not on a "GPL'd" design. But how is this different from using separate card (in a pci slot)? - It may be necessary to have something more in the spirit of the BSD license for those who wish to include closed license designs for expediency's sake. This would still be far better than nothing. I've heard open source advocates say, "I don't want anything between me and the hardware." I don't see why we should have anything between us and the ore we dug out of the ground. :) While the economics of hardware instantiation are completely different from the modern software environment, the design itself is susceptible to all the traditional benefits of Open Source development, and I would like to see that tradition extended to the hardware we use. Thanks for listening, -ralph P.S. My apologies if this isn't on topic, but I can't seem to find a list archive (on the web) from which to make this assessment. P.P.S. for those interested in historical context, this was inspired by the recent MacWeek story that IBM was releasing an 'unencumbered' PowerPC motherboard design. This design (might...there's been no public announcement from IBM) provide a good starting point from which to hack. See http://raj.phys.sfu.ca/mailman/listinfo/ppc-mobo for more info on this aspect. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
From: Alejandro Forero Cuervo [EMAIL PROTECTED] ESR In your zeal to distance your doctrinal purity from the OSI's ESR filthy but effective pragmatism, you are mainly succeeding in ESR marginalizing both the FSF and yourself. If you keep this up, ESR you're going to end up ranting to an audience of one, in the mirror. I believe more hackers would rather listen to Richard than to you, Eric. Perhaps your audience is bigger when you count them with your finger, but Richard is *far* from seeing himself in the situation you describe. There is a *huge* ammount of applications being actively developed that make part of the GNU movement. It's hard for me to understand how can you talk about the FSF marginalization. There are two totally different world-views and definitions of success here, obviously. Richard's success is being able to create and participate in a community developing and using free software, where noone is forced to use proprietary software. (There is always a free alternative to any needed proprietary software which works just as well.) It appears that this goal is nearly accomplished: Richard is able to avoid proprietary software entirely. The recent success of GNU/Linux makes it easy to forget how recently the goal seemed very far away, and Richard's views were very much "on the fringe." The work of the FSF continues as "community building" -- growing the membership and enlarging the pool of "free alternatives." Having all software be free would be nice, but a community can have rules and exist independently and separate from other communities with other rules. A sufficiently developed small community can be viable regardless of the size and number of surrounding communities. Eric's success is that no hacker must suffer using software that is not open source, and therefore cannot be modified or improved to serve the hacker better. This is quite a different goal, because it requires that NO community of proprietary software continue to exist. When Eric "wins", the FSF and community WILL BE "marginalized", because the free software movement will be a very small part of the universe of open software. As long as the goals and development of the free software community continue, "marginalized" is not a derogatory term, as I see it. Where the sparks fly between these two groups is when you consider that individuals who are working towards "open source" don't necessarily have the goals of Richard's movement in mind. They may not consider themselves (and may not act as) "good neighbors" in the sense of free software. Growing the free software community helps Eric's tribe. Growing the open source tribe doesn't always help Richard's free software community. When idealogies are concerned, sometimes getting distracted by the "good enough" idea (open source) will prevent the ideal (free software) from being considered and taking root. Richard has every right to insist that projects which are GNU projects be publicized as part of the free software movement. (Which is what started this thread) In all of this, I think it is obvious Richard would still prefer to see people outside the open source bubble move inside it, even if they don't make it all the way to the ideal. In that sense, Richard is not at war with Eric, but he would prefer that people not get distracted on their way to enlightenment. Eric recognized that not everyone was going to move into Richard's bubble, but that slighly relaxed requirements and improved marketing of "open source" would "win the suits." Convincing people outside to move inside Richard's bubble was (is?) difficult. That work needed the perseverance of an idealist like Richard who can work towards a goal without seeing much success for years. It can be lonely work. Convincing people outside to move inside Eric's bubble is a bit easier. Expanding the bubble to include the universe requires the work of a pragmatist like Eric who sees success and thirsts for more, who thrives and is encouraged by the numbers of people joining the party. The pragmatist who feels lonely, or sees others "shirking" a responsibility will at least be frustrated, or even give up in the end. In this thread, Eric expressed frustration that Richard doesn't (and didn't) settle for increasing the big bubble instead of clinging to the ideal. Happily, for us hackers, we first have Richard and then Eric. They are both brilliant. Help them out when you can. Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824 The Reuse RKT: Efficient awareness for software reuse: Free WWW site lists over 6000 of the most popular open source libraries, functions, and applications. http://www.mibsoftware.com/reuse/
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Hear hear. Can we just drop this now, please? I think most of us, if not all, have heard this and had it beaten to death. There are fundamental disagreements involved (in case you missed that part) and we *all* have differing takes on them... We're supposed to be discussing licenses, not philosophy, yeah? Thanks, Sujal Richard Stallman wrote: I've always been careful to describe the Open Source movement as a different philosophical camp, not an enemy. I think it fails to address the most important and deepest issues, but I don't argue against what it explicitly says. I hope that Eric will treat the Free Software movement in an equally civil fashion. While we disagree on the fundamental reasons for what we advocate, we are advocating very similar things, and we should be able to keep working together. -- -- Sujal Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sujal.net/
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
I believe more hackers would rather listen to Richard than to you, Eric. I disagree. I think both of them are worth listening to. I think there is no need to compare, because Eric and I mostly talk about different things. I think Eric has had some worthwhile and insightful things to say. I've been impressed and persuaded by some of them. Convincing business with practical arguments can help our community. However, Eric and the Open Source movement deliberately avoid the issues that I focus on most: issues of principle. They do not say that we deserve freedom to share and change software, or urge people to refuse to give up their freedom by accepting non-free software. Convincing business with practical arguments can help our community, but it won't inevitably help our community. To keep corporate involvement on the right track, developing free software and documentation rather than selling proprietary material to us, we the individuals in the community need to take a firm and principled stand. Practical arguments are not enough. We need to talk about freedom also, and we need to do it more than just a little.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Richard Stallman wrote: I believe more hackers would rather listen to Richard than to you, Eric. I disagree. I think both of them are worth listening to. I think there is no need to compare, because Eric and I mostly talk about different things. I think Eric has had some worthwhile and insightful things to say. I've been impressed and persuaded by some of them. Convincing business with practical arguments can help our community. However, Eric and the Open Source movement deliberately avoid the issues that I focus on most: issues of principle. They do not say that we deserve freedom to share and change software, That would be incorrect, at least from my vantage point. A core principle of the Open Source Definition is the right to fork - which is, the right to share and change software beyond the control of the original party. Whether this mandate should be viral upon derivatives is, of course, where we differ. However I think it is as important as the right to examine code and be able to modify it for personal use, as it is the main device for securing the long-term availability of the code - code that can not be forked can wither and die against the wishes of others, either by design or accidentally. Also, I want to clarify a statement I made earlier regarding GNOME - I did not mean to imply it wasn't part of the GNU Project. I still don't think, though, that everyone who works on GNOME does so for primarily political reasons, and for that reasons I question those who claim it's part of a "movement". Clearly Richard, and Miguel, have a different opinion. That's fine. Brian
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Brian Behlendorf wrote: Also, I want to clarify a statement I made earlier regarding GNOME - I did not mean to imply it wasn't part of the GNU Project. I still don't think, though, that everyone who works on GNOME does so for primarily political reasons, and for that reasons I question those who claim it's part of a "movement". Clearly Richard, and Miguel, have a different opinion. That's fine. I want to agree with Brian here. I'm not a contributor myself to GNOME, but I suspect that many of the contributors are from the "wanting software which doesn't suck" category more than they are the "It's freedom baby! Yeah!" camp. That's not to say that they are opposed to the political concept, and its also not to say that GNOME was created with the political concept in mind. It is simply to say that a chunk of the contributors may not necessarily care so much about the political aspect. == Derek J. Balling | "Bill Gates is a monocle and a white [EMAIL PROTECTED]| fluffy cat from being a villain in the http://www.megacity.org/ | next Bond film." - Dennis Miller ==
