Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

[Jacob Hrbek]

> 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 <kreyren@rixotstudio.cz> [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