Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

[Pen-Yuan Hsing]

On 1/25/22 12:48, Leah Rowe via libreplanet-discuss wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 23:16:36 -0500
> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> > If you explain in a few lines what issues you include in "hardware
> > freedom", I could see what attitude or attitudes I have towards those
> > issues.  They may be quite different from each other.
>
> 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
> To me, this sounds like a definition for free designs for electronics 
and/or digital computing devices, but not hardware in general.

For example, under this definition, what about a wooden chair? They 
usually are not designed with Gerber files, Verilog files, and don't 
have built-in firmware on chips (at least not yet until someone makes 
them "smart", the thought of which I shudder at).

So would a wooden chair not count as "hardware" or not something the 
people on this list care about? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm 
just trying to clarify how broad you want your definition to apply. If 
your definition is only about, for example, digital/electronics 
hardware, that is fine. But I think the term "free hardware", or 
variations thereof, would be too broad and misleading.

Again, I bring everyone's attention to what has already been done.

For example, the Open Source Hardware Association (OSHWA) has been very 
active for many years, and have a widely used definition for open source 
hardware here:

https://www.oshwa.org/definition/

OSHWA already has an open source hardware certification program, where 
complete hardware designs must be released under a free (as in freedom) 
license:

https://certification.oshwa.org

There is a long list of certified hardware.

And there is the DIN SPEC 3105 standard, which defines best practices 
for publishing hardware documentation (schematics, design files, 
manufacturing information, etc.) and how to certify them:

https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/wiki/DIN_SPEC_3105

For chips, there is the Free and Open Source Silicon Foundation:

https://www.fossi-foundation.org

And there's the Open Know-How specification that defines a common data 
model for sharing hardware designs:

https://www.internetofproduction.org/open-know-how

Yes, I once again acknowledge that the initiatives above often use the 
term "open source" which has important distinctions from "free" as in 
freedom. However, A LOT of work has gone into these successful efforts, 
and I believe it is worth learning about them, understanding their 
successes and failures, and constructively engaging with them first 
before starting a new project from scratch.

If nothing else, trying to understand and engage existing efforts will 
better identify and define any remaining gaps/shortcomings that could be 
overcome with a new project. For example, several messages in this 
thread have mentioned definitions and certifications for "free hardware" 
or "free hardware designs". They would benefit from a good understanding 
of what's already out there so that effort is not duplicated, and work 
together on things we can agree on.

Let's at least not re-invent any wheels.