Re: FSF not related to hardware

[Jean Louis]

* Jacob Hrbek <kreyren@rixotstudio.cz> [2022-02-01 12:57]:
> You are dismissing all arguments that i've provided and refuse to
> take them seriously.

I really tried to find arguments, but cannot. I wish to reach point of
understanding what is the argument.

> I clearly said that Hardware files meaning schematics, gerber files,
> etc.. yet you keep insisting on writting manuals which development would
> be in direct violation of a copyright while seemingly not understanding
> how the fabrication works..

Not like that. I do not need to list specific types of documents, when
I say "documentation" for hardware, that is what I mean with it. If
such hardware documentation is issued under free documentation
license or similar, then everybody is free to manufacture hardware. In
fact, we talk beside each other.

> In short to fabricate e.g. notebook's motherboard you need gerber files
> so that the fabricator knows how to wire the connections together and
> for the assembler to put the components where they are supposed to
> be.

Alright, I agree, because I refer to all necessary documentation to
manufacture hardware.

> Writting manuals and especially manuals of proprietary hardware or any
> other reverse-engineering of proprietary hardware is not helping
> anyone.

And I have not refer to "manuals" and I was explicit to say that I
don't mean manual.

> So to summarize it:
> 
> RMS Inadvertently created Free Hardware Movement as it's a branch of
> Free Software Development with FSF being in the position of
> authority on the subject.

That is your viewpoint on that. Not that I agree neither that I am
interested to research the history. Though I am interested in free
hardware designs.

> People are using GPLv3 which is a license designed to protect
> user-freedom where in this usecase it fails to do as evident by the
> provided example with RepRap project and people forking their design
> and making it proprietary so i've proposed to follow up on their
> suggestion and create GPLv4 that includes Hardware Freedom and i m
> happy to submit a proposal for it.

Alright, and now propose it. And then discuss, and if it is rejected
or accepted, you are the one that should accept both of decisions.

Otherwise you are also free to create a new license without FSF's help.

> By promoting proprietary hardware without acknowledging Free Hardware
> Designs the FSF harms Free Hardware developers

I don't agree that "proprietary hardware" is equivalent to
"proprietary software" thus the comparison is not in place. 

I don't agree that FSF harms free hardware developers, you yourself
said they are using licenses provided by FSF, so that means FSF helps
them, not harms them. 

The one hardware developer shall stand up who was harmed and tell
so. Otherwise case is dismissed. 

> I argue that ryf should add additional certification that is
> directly only to a hardware for that reason and that h-node should
> add additional attribute to clarify Hardware Freedom Rating so that
> people are aware about those alternatives and are not afraid to use
> them.

Write to those parties with your requests.

> FSF should highlight the problems with the usage of proprietary hardware
> and actively promote Free Hardware to make it mainstream which benefits
> us all.

You should define what you mean with "proprietary hardware". Designs
such as shapes of hardware can be copyrighted, is that what you mean?
If you mean that proprietary hardware is the one which does not have
free license to let other people fabricate it, then simply find and
foster hardware that is free to become able to manufacture such. That
is what people do, I am not involved, but you said you do something,
other people do this and that, there are already many good examples.

If FSF will be able to support that cause, why not ask FSF directly?

And if they don't support the cause because their primary target is
software, not hardware, then please, don't pull your hair out.

> And since FSF actively endorses and promotes Purism they should hold
> them accountable if their CEO says that they will release the hardware
> files and decade later the files are still not provided and if they fail
> to do so or if they fail to establish transparency then FSF should
> withdraw their endorsements.

I don't think so. But then speak to FSF.

> As Leah Rowe said Schematics to Proprietary Hardware are also
> important for projects like Libre Bootloaders, i personally don't
> support those schematics but i recognize the importance of them for
> Free Software development.

Yes, I recognize it too, it is important.

> Why can't we do this and make Hardware Freedom significantly more
> sustainable?

For FSF why not write to them directly?

You can make one small step forward with your project. Leah Rowe can
make something significantly rather then me or you.

Me, I cannot, I have no knowledge on how to make hardware. I make some
machines for rocks, not computer stuff.

More references on free hardware from Eben Moglen:

"Die Gedanken Sind Frei": Free Software and the Struggle for Free Thought 
Wizards of OS 3, Opening Keynote
http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/berlin-keynote.html




-- 
Jean

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

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