How can we support free hardware designs

[Jean Louis]

* Jacob Hrbek <kreyren@rixotstudio.cz> [2022-02-01 06:33]:
> > 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?).

Basic issue is actually well pointed by RMS on the hardware
design. First comes the subject of discussion. We have the thread here
how FSF continuously harms free hardware, which is neither true,
neither enough descriptive for people to understand what this
discussion is about.

Subject of this thread could be made in a positive way, something
like, "How can we support free hardware designs"

Then there is fundamental issue of misunderstanding what those users
or original posters want to make free, do they want maybe free
hardware designs or free hardware, as the latter means like companies
shall distribute computers free of charge.

Me, I like free hardware designs, but I find that as something new to
be created. "Free hardware" as term is not distinctive enough. Also it
becomes accusatory to present hardware manufacturers. 

What you are talking about is not "hardware" but the files, data, that
can help somebody to build that hardware. You are talking about free
patents and free manufacturing rights. In that context of the data,
design, computer and paper files about the hardware that could be
manufactured, that is pretty similar to software and that may be
published under licenses similar to GPLv3 though I do not think that
license is proper. 

Because original posters or supporters of this discussion did not
agree between themselves well enough that causes problems in
understanding.

More proper license for free software design is the GNU Free
Documentation License or Creative Commons licenses. This is because we
do not speak of software, we speak of data, files, designs for which
author will give permissions to anybody to manufacture hardware.

> 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.

Yes, we speak of files. And it is very simple:

Read this article:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html

I would apply this license for hardware documentation:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL

When you get any kind of hardware, you are able to give it as a gift
to anybody. No license prevents you doing that. That problem does not
exist. If you say "hardware" then that is the meaning. But if you say
"documentation for hardware" or "hardware design files" then it will
be better understood.

For any hardware you are free to borrow it, if it is yours. But if we
speak of documentation for hardware manufacturing then with the free
license anybody is free to give such documentation to other people.

For any hardware you are free to sell it if it is yours. Unless it is
prohibited by government, for example weapon sales may be
prohibited. Military software, rocket navigations, radars, all that
can be hardware and it could be prohibited. Appeal to your government
to try to get freedom to sell it. 

However, if you wish to speak of selling documentation for hardware
manufacturing then once issued under the free license, such
documentation is liberated and people may make free hardware.

One shall start bringin solution from the problem. Not bringing
solution from a problem which does not exist in real world.

Licenses to apply for free hardware designs are same as for
documentation and free culture works:

GNU Free Documentation License:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL

Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Understanding Free Cultural Works - Creative Commons
https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/freeworks

> > 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).

FSF endorsed PureOS. That is free operating system. FSF is for
software. It it not for hardware. Though FSF does foster hardware on
which free software may run. Thereby it is not relevant if hardware is
proprietary.

Free Software NEVER MEANT it is free of charge. You are mistaken and
it is second time I am noticing it. That you need to "pay to use the
device" is not relevant neither to software nor hardware. GNU Deluxe
Distribution was sold for US $5,000 -- we don't speak of price in free
software. 

That FSF endorsed PureOS is not relevant to the fact that hardware you
got is not documented under free documentation license.

Your freedom is not in danger. You purchased the phone. But
manufacturer is not controlling you, right? You can use the phone for
any purpose, regardless who you are, you could be of any nationality,
sexual orientation, member of any kind of group, use it for good and
evil, you name it. No rights neither freedom have been stripped by
selling you the phone. Especially not the Librem one.

> 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.

Make a group and invite people to create documented hardware designs
under free licenses.

I just don't see how that directly relates to FSF which is for
software, not hardware.

Like what is really the problem? Is it money you are asking for a
project? I don't think FSF would have that money, but you may ask
them. I am not FSF.

You mentioned FSF endorsed Purism, but you took it out of the
context. FSF endorsed PureOS as free operating system, and PureOS is
not equal to Purism. Maybe FSF acknowledged and endorsed Purism as
author of fully free distribution of software, but that is only in
that context. It is not in the context of endorsing Purism generally,
as FSF cannot have possible insights into other company. That FSF
endorsed Librem as a phone on which fully free operating system can
run is also related to software, not hardware.

Thus, I think you are mistaken in your assumptions.

And as summary, "FSF does not continously harm free hardware" -- as
that is simply not true. It appears as fears, uncertainties and
doubts, negative energy, where it does not belong. FSF is the last
that would harm free hardware designs, it would rather foster such
projects, however, it is up to them to decide on that, as they are for
software primarily and have bunch of work to do.

I think it is unfair how your allegation is being distributed on the
mailing list thus damaging the image of FSF. 

Many people will read that mailing list, it will remain practically
forever in Internet archives.

> > 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.

Remember that I told you that seeing differences is important. Not
everything is equal. 

A digital watch has software inside showing me the time and date. But
that does not mean that my freedoms in software are prevented, because
I have never receive that software. It is built-in. I am not invoking
it, all what I do is I put battery in the digital watch. Because
digital watch is hardware itself without disconnected software, none
of freedoms are problematic. And I have not get any "license" with it,
that prevents me using it for whatever purpose I want. It is highly
questionable if I would be able to help others to have digital watch
be decomposing it and studying it inside. It is much easier to make it
myself. I would like that we have free culture and that is where
groups in the world are moving to.

We want free culture, thus free hardware.

But that is not related to FSF continuously harming free hardware,
which is not true.

> 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.

Yes, I would like that type of free culture, so that is something to
do.

However, what do you want? Do you maybe indirectly ask for funding
from FSF to create free hardware or what exactly is the plan?

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

Yes, but you can't force present sellers. What you can do is get funds
or put efforts and create such free hardware documentation.

> 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.

Yes, sure, I would also like that.

> > 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

But issues of Purism are not relevant to FSF, you can complain to them
on that. If you feel you are member of Purism or their customer, and
you have got some statement you think is incorrect, let them know. 

> 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.

You can't force companies, it is their property and their
business. What you can do is make it hardware documentation and
release yourself or from your supported groups.

> 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.

Well -- that is beyond the concept of "free software freedoms" to
which you also leaned. If it is free culture, it is free culture, let
people sell it. I have paid mining engineer to draw CAD files for
particular rock grinding machine and I have intentionally made it
under free documentation license. But I do not distribute the files
online. I give the license to the person purchasing the machine. If
that person however makes more money then me, that is their freedom, I
gave it to them. It is free culture and I am totally fine with
somebody else making money on it. That is what I wanted. And it can
seriously change lifes of people.

> 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.

Patents prevent the free culture development. We are people, all part
of the oneness, all together, and we shall be sharing benefits with
each other. We spend so much resources, efforts, money, time, people,
because we do not share with each other. But it would be much cheaper
if we would share with each other. And this 21st century would be now
lik 31st century, we would be by all means greatly technologically
advanced. 

> 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.

Leaning to free software freedoms, let people do what they want. Don't
ask for conditions. Freedom is without condition. You can't enforce
third parties to tell you how much it cost them to develop those
changes. Let them be free. You promote freedom. Though you have to
review your understanding of it.

I find that by using extreme examples you may easier understand
freedom. 

Can I use your software or hardware design to initiate wars and thus
kill people? If I am not allowed by the license to do so, that would
impair my freedom. That is one extreme example.

> 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.

If it is free hardware design than it cannot use proprietary
components, as all of the design would be under free documentation
license. 

> > 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.

It did not just "endorse" the device, but "endorsed the device that
runs fully free software distribution".

The context is important.

And you really run after wrong party. If you wish to point out fingers
then go to those organization who really abuse your freedom, like
Apple, how you said it.

I don't even know if you are the double agent of Apple. You could be. 

FSF is wrong target for that kind of arguments. It is the last target
to be accused.

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

Device or software? You better first make it clear what you talk
about. Is it hardware or software? Or hardware in the context of
software? 

> > 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.

Which damage?

Look, you do not like that article, whatever some organization said,
and you are free to tell us on this mailing list, and you may express
your opinions otherwise. 

If you wish to have your own organization feel free to organize it. I
would be happy to register such for you in the US for US $600 -- so
just let me know in the private and I will register for you the "Free
Hardware Foundation" and you can tell me in which of the US
states. I could do the same in Czech Republic as well.

> > 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.

Hardware freedom is not directly relevant to FSF, it may have its
roots in software freedom. However, FSF is organization and does not
foster hardware. It is FSF. 

But as I said I can make for you FHF.

FSF is not authority on how people license their documentation,
hardware documentation or software. FSF promotes free software, but is
not making decisions for other people directly, and is thus not
"authority" over other people' freedom. It is authority on licensing
of free software, but not on the choice and decision making of other
people.

When other people are supporter of FSF that does not involve FSF with
hardware directly.

> > 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.

If that is true, that alone is not spyware. It just opens possibility
for spyware. I would say you should retract your original statement,
as it is wrong. Neither Spectre nor Meltdown bugs are spyware. How I
understand it, you have alleged that Librem has spyware built-in and
now you cannot demonstrate that there is reference to spyware in
Librem. Thus retract your statement publicly, apologize to
Purism/Librem and people on this mailing list, as it was wrong
allegation.

You have serious misunderstanding of terms on what is a security
vulnerability and what is spyware.

-- 
Jean

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

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/