Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

[Jacob Hrbek]

> 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&T 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&t=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 
components and software run on them.

e.g. when you buy a notebook from a seller that the seller is to provide 
you all of these files.

But i am mainly interested in Free Hardware Designs as i want to 
fabricate the hardware myself to mitigate supply-chain attack and adjust 
the design for my computing.

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

I agree and i also highlight that sustainability is important in this 
scope so in case of Purism and assuming the assumed lieing about the 
development cost being true -> By releasing the hardware files as is and 
continueing on selling their devices without changes then that would 
mean a net loss.. We should establish values to define how the make the 
development sustainable even with the hardware files released.

One argument that i am leaning towards is by requiring a fee to those 
who are producing the hardware commercially as the rules which would 
make this not acceptable for software are different here, but there are 
many ways to maintain net-gain i just see this one to require the least 
amount of resources to implement.

> 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. -- Louis

Same as in Software i argue that patents are terrible for hardware, i 
agree that it's one way to make sure that the resources that you put 
into developing this invention are returned and multiplied to you, but 
it's also very restrictive and you can discriminate people from using 
this invention by just deciding that you won't sell them a license for 
it which i find as unacceptable.

But as in software i am against the utilization of patents as by 
enabling people to use your invention the invention can be further 
developed and making you the creator more money in return e.g. Josef 
Průša's 3D printers.

> 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. -- Louis

I am not against people forking the design and selling it with charging 
however much they want for the design.

I am also not against them not granting the right to use and 
redistribute the changes that they put into their design as long as they 
are transparent about how much it cost them to develop those changes and 
how much funding they got so far and once the funding it reached for it 
to be released under four-freedom complying license, but i also argue 
that the right to improve and study is to be preserved and the right to 
use should be reasonable so that e.g. 12yo student can buy it and learn 
how it works.

>  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? -- Louis

If the Free Hardware Design uses a proprietary components then that 
might make it problematic for me to release the improvements with the 
component on as such the design should be stripped off of such 
proprietary components and replaced with a stub component explaining 
what is the component supposed to do to enable better implementation.

> FSF endorsed free software distribution is PureOS. Who made the 
distribution is for FSF irrelevant. Important is that it is fully free 
software. -- Louis

This is false, FSF **DIRECTLY** endorsed the proprietary device Librem 5 
[https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/ethical-tech-giving-guide-freedom-is-the-gift-that-keeps-on-giving] 
and even at the top of their "Ethical giving guide" 
[https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v10/] enabling the proprietary 
developer to adapt their marketing for it 
[https://puri.sm/posts/librem-5-on-the-free-software-foundations-ethical-tech-gift-giving-guide] 
at the cost of Free Hardware developers.

And the device is not RYF cerficied so i doubt that it's fully free 
software.

> You promote freedom zero, right? You say that you vouch for free 
software to be used for whatever purpose one wants and wish?
> So stick to it. -- Louis

I was promoting Freedom 0 with the word "software" replaced with "hardware".

> If somebody wish to use free software to profit out of it, stick to 
it. -- Louis

In terms of computer science and hardware engineering i am not 
socialist, but technoliberal so i am not against people profiting off of 
Free hardware and i endorse people who do as it's very important for 
economy and the Hardware Freedom itself.

(just to clarify in terms of politics i am centrist and sometimes 
bigtent depending on how the proposal is phrased)

> Regarding FSF's endorsement of Librem, please see why: 
https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v10/ -- Louis

i dismiss this argument, the "Why" is irrelevant, they directly endorsed 
the proprietary device so the damage it already done! If they care only 
about the OS then they should have only endorse the OS itself.

If FSF cares about Hardware Freedom then this should _NEVER_ be in any 
way shape or form acceptable especially when there are so many Free 
Hardware projects that would deserve such endorsement much more such as 
the mentioned Smart Watch that is in dire need of promotion.

> So it is all about free software and privacy, user having the 
control. -- Louis

I already explained that there is nothing even comparable to control and 
privacy on Librem 5 in previous e-mail.


> FSF means "Free Software Foundation". -- Louis

Yes, FSF means "Free Software Foundation" -- RMS is the founder of Free 
Software Movement and found FSF This movement is what created Hardware 
Freedom so FSF is the authority on it as evident by so many people using 
GPLv3 for their hardware and majority of Free Hardware developers being 
either supporter of FSF or affiliated with FSF.

> Is there any reference to spyware in Librem 14? -- Louis

Yes, i was informed that the CPU is vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown 
bugs and we have no idea what components are used and how they are wired 
to say for sure that the device is safe.

On 1/31/22 20:47, Jean Louis wrote:
> * Jacob Hrbek <kreyren@rixotstudio.cz> [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,
> > 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.
> I see those "accusations" as like coming from an inexperienced person.
>
> FSF endorsed free software distribution is PureOS. Who made the
> distribution is for FSF irrelevant. Important is that it is fully free
> software.
>
> You promote freedom zero, right? You say that you vouch for free
> software to be used for whatever purpose one wants and wish?
>
> So stick to it.
>
> If somebody wish to use free software to profit out of it, stick to
> it.
>
> Advertising "free and open-source" is not related to FSF neither
> GNU. Any company may advertise how they wish and want. It is not even
> a trademark related to FSF.
>
> Regarding FSF's endorsement of Librem, please see why:
> https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v10/
>
> 1) Instead of Android or iOS, the Librem 5 runs the PureOS
> distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system. The FSF has carefully
> vetted PureOS's commitment to user freedom with our guidelines for
> fully free systems.
>
> 2) Comes equipped with physical killswitches for the microphone, GPS,
> and Wi-Fi connections, making snitching on your whereabouts a physical
> impossibility.
>
> 3) Please note that the secondary processor (or "baseband") on the
> device still contains nonfree software. To preserve your freedom and
> privacy, be sure to flip the killswitch after placing a call or
> sending a text.
>
> So it is all about free software and privacy, user having the control.
>
> FSF did not endorse it for reasons of being "free hardware", but for
> reasons of user having control over software in that hardware.
>
> Distinguish. Don't identify. Don't consider to be equal or the same.
>
> > which i doubt would be possible if FSF adapted hardware freedom.
> FSF means "Free Software Foundation".
>
> > So from my point of view FSF is an authority on user freedom and
> > these actions sabotage the free hardware.
> And from my point of view the above sentence is not in the context of
> free software.
>
> > Heavy promotion of Purism Librem 14 (proprietary hardware shipped
> > with spyware) using ethical giving guides, numerous endorsements,
> > etc..
> Is there any reference to spyware in Librem 14?
>
>
>
> 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