[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> Then let me be clear. By "free hardware" I mean that the following is
> available under a free license:
> * Gerber files for circuit boards
> * Boardview / gerber / design files
> * Verilog files for making your own versions of each chip
> * Built-in firmwares on chips must also be free. E.g. bootroms
A gerber file alone is not adequate as source code for a circuit; it
is more like compiled code. But assuming that the "design files" are
the source code, then I think this is a coherent definition of "free
hardware". I agree that all hardware ought to be free in this sense,
some day. https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html talks
about this, and why it's too much to insist on for the short term.
But many people say "free hardware" and they mean something very
different, a much less stringent criterion. They mean "comes with the
specs needed to write free software for it". I don't think that is
enough to merit the term "free hardware". What can we call it?
> (this last one is something that the FSF currently provides exceptions
> for in RYF)
I just modified https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html to better
explain why we make this exception, why for the time being we must.
Also how to keep it honest.