Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

[Jacob Hrbek]

> If you can come up with a good definition of "free hardware", I might 
join in using it. -- RMS

I don't see too many differences in comparison to free software so i 
would use:

The Free Hardware is hardware that respects four essential freedoms:
- Freedom 0: The freedom the use the hardware for any purpose
- Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the hardware works and change it 
to make it do what you wish (access to all relevant files used to build 
the hardware such as, but not limited to schematics, gerber files, 
verilog, bios source code, bootloader source code and firmware source 
code is precondition for this)
- Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute and make copies so that you can 
help your neighbour.
- Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the hardware, release your 
improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that 
the whole community benefits.

> I now understand that when you speak of "the schematics" of a 
computer, you mean diagrams of _some_ of the circuits in it: the ones at 
board level.  If I understand you right, this does not include the 
circuits inside the chips; they are not published. -- RMS

I wouldn't consider it being a Fully Free Hardware if the relevant files 
for the chips such as verilog are not included with the design, but i 
would argue that if the developer provides just the schematics and 
gerber files that it's already a major help for the Free Hardware in 
general as it allows us to skip on research and improve the design.

> This is why I decided to formulate my ideas in terms of "free 
hardware designs".  The design of the board in the 
PowerProgressCommunity notebook is published, it seems; depending on the 
license it carries, it may be free.  If so, we can say that that design 
is a free hardware design.  Meanwhile, the design of the processor chip 
in that product is not free.

The PowerProgressCommunity notebook is using POWER9 CPU which is using 
apache and creative commons license 
[https://github.com/openpower-cores][https://github.com/antonblanchard/microwatt][https://github.com/open-power] 
so anyone can study how it works and fabricate the CPU.

> But that future is distant.  It would be self-defeating to reject all 
computers with anything made from a nonfree hardware design.  We'd have 
to reject all computers.  What good would that be? -- RMS
> That is a very harsh accusation.  I don't believe it -- the FSF does 
not do sabotage. I hope this is some sort of misunderstanding. -- RMS

We already have hardware freedom in lot of areas:
- PowerProgressCommunity ("PPC") and people with less resources such as 
SLIMBOOK.
- Relativty https://github.com/relativty/Relativty
- Open Smartwatch https://github.com/Open-Smartwatch
- Majority of all 3D printers, CNC machines
- 3D pen https://github.com/3dsimo/3dsimo_kit
- Firearms, rocket launchers and various bombs https://defcad.com/
- Aircrafts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MakerPlane
- Drones 
https://www.thingiverse.com/search?q=drone&dwh=615bb68759e69c6&type=things&sort=relevant
- Glucometers https://github.com/nebulabio/gluco
- Robotic arms https://hackaday.io/project/12989-thor
- and all of the things on thingiverse https://www.thingiverse.com/ 
ranging from cool props (https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:644933), 
planters (https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:903411), fashion items 
(https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1819242), musical instruments 
(https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2755765)

And we with exception of openmoko (R.I.P.) and with the greatest respect 
we would have free hardware smartphones if you and FSF didn't enable 
Purism and PINE64 to profit off of your endorsements, advertise 
themselves as "Free and Open-Source" on proprietary hardware and get 
away with lieing about releasing the hardware files (alleged purism, 
https://git.dotya.ml/kreyren/kreyren/issues/13) or maintain a 
proprietary model on GPLv3-compatible CPU like raptorcs is doing with 
Talos II next to the RYF certification.

... and possibly Free Hardware tablets as companies such as jingpad 
(https://en.jingos.com) can afford having a proprietary model with the 
support of "free software influencers" who praise it for being free just 
because it uses proprietary fork of linux 
[https://youtube.076.ne.jp/watch?v=P-14-qlKyHA] 
[https://youtube.076.ne.jp/watch?v=LIKfXbwzfXE] which i doubt would be 
possible if FSF adapted hardware freedom.

So from my point of view FSF is an authority on user freedom and these 
actions sabotage the free hardware.

> A gerber file alone is not adequate as source code for a circuit; it 
is more like compiled code. -- RMS

In terms of PCB design the gerber files are the source code and the 
fabricated PCBs are comparable to compiled code, i don't find it sane to 
compare gerber files to anything beyond PCB design as it's like saying 
"Makefile is like compiled code" to me.

Goting further with the comparisons:
- Verilog files are the source code for manufacturing the CPUs
- Schematics are eqvivalent to software specification (doing research 
and writting down a documentation to know how to write the software and why)
- Built-in firmware on chips are comparable to packaged software -> As 
long as you have the source code and access to downstream packaging then 
you can change it.

> 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?

Personally I consider using the term "free hardware" for hardware which 
doesn't provide the highlighted files as harmful sabotage as it makes 
the development of free hardware designs significantly more complicated 
namely:

Heavy promotion of Purism Librem 14 (proprietary hardware shipped with 
spyware) using ethical giving guides, numerous endorsements, etc.. when 
PPC is struggling to crowdsource resources for actual free hardware 
notebook with no endorsement by FSF and FSF staffers only laughing and 
mocking the project when i suggested it to be endorsed. -> Longer 
development of PPC while sabotaging the market to use librem 14 and alike.

---

So please if you are serious about 'we need to develop free designs and 
should use them when feasible " 
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html] then 
consider holding purism accountable to releasing the promised hardware 
files (or be transparent about when they will cover the development 
cost) and consider taking steps to mitigate the current negative impact 
that FSF has on hardware freedom such as adjusting the GPL to also cover 
hardware files to mitigate the highlighted problem with RepRap licensing 
that enables anyone to take free hardware designs and profit off of them 
as proprietary such as the highlighted Homer3D 3D printer case.

On 1/26/22 04:37, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If you can come up with a good definition of "free hardware",
> I might join in using it.

--
Jacob Hrbek

publickey - kreyren@rixotstudio.cz - 1677db82.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature