Mzee: It sounds like you are describing an ideal that (people here say)
doesn't exist today. It's an ideal for a world where we have the opportunity
to fabricate the hardware ourselves, from the free design. Kind of like we
have the opportunity today to compile software ourselves, from source code.
It would not matter if most people will not know how to evaluate free
hardware designs. So long as some people evaluate the free hardware design
(like how only some people know how to evaluate source code today) then they
can warn their community if they notice something amiss.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html
Michał Masłowski said that no free hardware exists these days. He
described free hardware as "anyone may audit/study all aspects of the
hardware, share/modify designs, and manufacture."
https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/hardware-type-and-software-freedom
I assume that Michal's standard for free hardware is the same as the FSF's
standard for free hardware design (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Does Michal's definition of free hardware match yours, Mzee?
According to Michal's standard, there are (apparently) no free hardware on
the market today. How is OSHWA going to "move towards common expectations of
what qualifies as open source hardware"? They will only find hardware to
certify if they choose a lower standard than Michal's.
Can the OSHWA go lower on the "open hardware" standard while still meeting
what's important to you:
1. "hardware whose interiors and circuits are known and well described"
2. "have to chance to have a truly free computer system. Including all
hardware and software parts. "
I hope that I didn't misrepresent anything here (especially Michal's view).
Please correct me if I got something wrong.
