Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware

[Jean Louis]

* Jacob Hrbek <kreyren@rixotstudio.cz> [2022-01-26 22:18]:
> > 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:

Seeing differences or making distinctions is intelligent approach, not
seeing differences is the opposite. Let us see differences.  We are in
the discussion because we want to point out differences, find the
differences and act or not act upon it.

Example:

A child who knows what is blindworm may take it from ground and put in
his pocket or otherwise play with it. An adult who does not know what
is blindworm may kill it by thinking it is a snake. Child could be as
well get abused by such adult who does not know differences.

> The Free Hardware is hardware that respects four essential freedoms:

Personally, I have got problems with software because when I was not
allowed to freely copy it to friends. I felt always unfair as that is
what I was doing and what I used to do. And I did feel constrained in
my freedom. 

With hardware I had personally never problem because hardware never
had any copyrights attached preventing me to give hardware to my
friends. I could give it to them, ask them to come to play on computer
with me. Thus I cannot see how those "four essential freedom" that
relate to free software also relate to hardware.

> - Freedom 0: The freedom the use the hardware for any purpose

Did anybody prevent you to use hardware for any purpose?

If there is no problem in the first place, your solution to apply
freedom zero to hardware is not a solution at all, because there was
no problem to solve.

> - 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)

Are you talking there about hardware or software? As you mentioned
only software, why is then "hardware" mixed there? 

You wanted to say you want to study how hardware works, but then you
speak of all the software in the hardware.

Apply those freedoms to software in the hardware.

> - Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute and make copies so that you can
> help your neighbour.

Whatever hardware you buy, or otherwise acquire legally you are also
free to redistribute to anybody. You can also become an official
distributor. Joking. But I do get your point.

However, I don't think that we talk of "hardware", we do talk of the
free hardware design here.

Such design would be in some CAD file or other types of files. I have
made my own design of a mining machine and have given it to key people
and they are free to manufacture the machine because they got the
design as CAD file with the free license. Similar is with the computer
hardware. 

You have to be distinctive when expressing your plan. Otherwise
hardware manufacturers will think you are against them.

If somebody is maybe producing keyboards and selling them, and they
have some special new features and patent for 20 years to benefit from
the invention, then some guys come around and claim that they want
"free hardware" -- that could as well mean you want to rob the
magazine to get the free hardware. If they say they want to
"distribute it freely" that would mean that after the robbery they
will give it to their neighbors.

Thus you have to make distinction what you need and want to
communicate as clear as possible.

Hardware design is not touchable, it is maybe on paper or in the
computer file. Is that what you want to distribute freely? You can
make new hardware based on that design.

Hardware is touchable, that is keyboard, computer, hard disk, etc. But
you can't claim you want it for free as that is somebody's physical
property. 

> - Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the hardware

That is maybe a problem, but I think you have to re-define, and find
if there are some constraints to freedom, and remove that what is not
the issue, and use that what is the issue.

You should give examples that we can see where, who, how, prevented
you the freedom to improve your hardware. That may be related to the
"Right to repair".

> release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the
> public, so that the whole community benefits.

I think nobody prevents you doing that anyway. Even if manufacturer
asks you to repair the hardware and no third party, you still have the
right to repair it yourself, your hardware is yours, is anybody
preventing you to improve it?

> 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.

I see those "accusations" as like coming from an inexperienced person. 

FSF endorsed free software distribution is PureOS. Who made the
distribution is for FSF irrelevant. Important is that it is fully free
software. 

You promote freedom zero, right? You say that you vouch for free
software to be used for whatever purpose one wants and wish?

So stick to it.

If somebody wish to use free software to profit out of it, stick to
it. 

Advertising "free and open-source" is not related to FSF neither
GNU. Any company may advertise how they wish and want. It is not even
a trademark related to FSF. 

Regarding FSF's endorsement of Librem, please see why:
https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v10/

1) Instead of Android or iOS, the Librem 5 runs the PureOS
distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system. The FSF has carefully
vetted PureOS's commitment to user freedom with our guidelines for
fully free systems.

2) Comes equipped with physical killswitches for the microphone, GPS,
and Wi-Fi connections, making snitching on your whereabouts a physical
impossibility.

3) Please note that the secondary processor (or "baseband") on the
device still contains nonfree software. To preserve your freedom and
privacy, be sure to flip the killswitch after placing a call or
sending a text.

So it is all about free software and privacy, user having the control.

FSF did not endorse it for reasons of being "free hardware", but for
reasons of user having control over software in that hardware.

Distinguish. Don't identify. Don't consider to be equal or the same.

> which i doubt would be possible if FSF adapted hardware freedom.

FSF means "Free Software Foundation". 

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

And from my point of view the above sentence is not in the context of
free software.

> Heavy promotion of Purism Librem 14 (proprietary hardware shipped
> with spyware) using ethical giving guides, numerous endorsements,
> etc.. 

Is there any reference to spyware in Librem 14? 



Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/