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. ]]]

  > If you want companies to care about freedom, you've got to start with
  > hardware. 

I don't agree.

              I say this, because hardware really is no different than
  > software.

The differences are tremendously important in practice.
https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html explains this.

If we take "really" to mean "at the heart", your statement becomes
somewhat true.  But that meaning doesn't lead to the practical consequences
you argue for.

  > However, freedom comes at different levels. I would say yes, you do
  > have some freedoms even if the schematics are available but non-free.

I agree that having nonfree schematics provides benefits.  For instance,
it helps people develop free replacement software, which is very important.

Likewise, having nonfree source code for a program provides benefits.

But when it comes to defining free software, or free hardware, we must
insist on all the freedoms that in principle software or hardware must
respect.  We must not start talking about anything less as "free".

  > Well, you said that free hardware designs are necessary in a "distant
  > future", and I strongly disagree with that. I think we should be
  > pushing for it *now*. We already have efforts underway, so why stop?

I make a distinction between "encouraging" and "pushing".
"Encouraging" is painless, it just takes effort.  "Pushing"
is so hard that we'd have to sacrifice something else.

We encourage free hardware design effort in
https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html.
We can encourage it elsewhere -- any suggestions?

However, adding additional hardware criteria to RYF would be pushing
-- it would remove important products from the list.  In my view, that
change would be self-defeating.

  > Why invent limitations for yourself? I say we should apply ourselves
  > instead, and that's exactly what some of us are doing.

It's not a "limitation", it's focus.

In order for a certification program to do good, it needs to be able
to certify a substantial number of products that will satisfy
customers' needs.  Right now, RYF does.  If we added free hardware
criteria, it wouldn't do that any more.


-- 
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)