Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ 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.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)