Re: How can we support free hardware designs

[Jean Louis]

* Jacob Hrbek <kreyren@rixotstudio.cz> [2022-02-01 11:11]:
> > Basic issue is actually well pointed by RMS on the hardware design. First
> comes the subject of discussion. We have the thread here how FSF
> continuously harms free hardware, which is neither true, neither enough
> descriptive for people to understand what this discussion is about. -- Louis
> 
> I dispute that being untrue for the reasoning provided in summary:
> 1. FSF promotes and certifies proprietary hardware developers which makes
> sustainability of Free Hardware projects significantly more
> difficult

You just forgot to tell "how" it harms free hardware? You said
something, but failed to answer the question.

From: https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria

So the criteria is there and hardware is promoted that can run fully
free software. It is all about freedom in running software.

That hardware may be proprietary, true. But it is important that it
runs fully free software.

Your blame is in wrong direction really.

> 2. GPLv3 is used for Free Hardware by a lot of people who think that
> using it will make their hardware four freedom complying while only
> contributing to proprietary development.

Yes? That however is not related to FSF. That FSF has copyrights to
GPL license is not related to people using GPL license. What those
people think is not discussed on this list. But feel free to invite
them. 

> 3. FSF to my knowledge never cared to promote or endorse free
> hardware design / Free Hardware project such as power progress
> community which i think is the closes to enabling us to declare an
> independence from a proprietary notebooks.

It is not so. It should be clear from intentions that one may read
here: https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria that FSF would welcome free
hardware design.

You have chosen wrong target. 

It is now up to you to look into the mirror and ask yourself what you
want really.

> > Subject of this thread could be made in a positive way, something like,
> "How can we support free hardware designs" -- Louis
> 
> I already tried to discuss this in FSF communities that way and from my
> experience such approach is never productive with FSF so i chosed
> this one.

FSF does its work, isn't it obvious? It consists of good people with
good intentions. To say that approach is "never productive with FSF"
is just another unjust fiddle-faddle.

You wish to say that best approach is to publicly accuse organization
of wrongdoing and cause further damages to them?!

> So in practice i argue for companies and inviduals to provide us all
> the required files needed to fabricate the hardware without
> restrictions (i am open to discussion on restricted use for the
> right to redistribute in commercial setting)

So then do something practically and ask companies to liberate their
hardware. Provide template on how to ask them.

> > More proper license for free software design is the GNU Free Documentation
> License or Creative Commons licenses. This is because we do not speak of
> software, we speak of data, files, designs for which author will give
> permissions to anybody to manufacture hardware. -- Louis
> 
> It's not data.. that would imply something like database this is a hardware
> engineering i find that making the destinction is an important point to be
> made as people then confuse what the files are and what they do.

Hardware engineering is recorded somehow. Maybe on paper, most
probably digitally. That what you record is some information, and I
mentioned it as "data". 

Dictionary's definition is:

* Overview of noun data

The noun data has 1 sense (first 1 from tagged texts)
1. (76) data, information -- (a collection of facts from which conclusions may 
be drawn; "statistical data")

> > Yes, we speak of files. And it is very simple:
> > Read this article:
> > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html
> >
> > I would apply this license for hardware documentation:
> > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL -- Louis
> 
> Again licenses provided by FSF are not sufficient. We need handling for
> patents similar to what TAPR is doing and we should have a discussion about
> preventing 3rd party from taking the design and making it
> proprietary.

Feel free to design the licenses that are sufficient. 

> > When you get any kind of hardware, you are able to give it as a gift to
> anybody. No license prevents you doing that. That problem does not exist. If
> you say "hardware" then that is the meaning. But if you say "documentation
> for hardware" or "hardware design files" then it will be better understood.
> -- Louis
> 
> disagree, The license can restrict the redistribution as explained in email
> before and as highlighting the case of Louis Rossman's batteries being
> stolen by Apple.

Alright, that case is easy to solve. Don't buy Apple products and tell
to the world why.

> > However, if you wish to speak of selling documentation for hardware
> manufacturing then once issued under the free license, such documentation is
> liberated and people may make free hardware.  -- Louis
> 
> Again, Documentation is important, but _It's not enough to fabricate the
> device!

That would mean you did not get enough documentation. Of course you
need money, specialists, materials, machines to fabricate the
device. But you are the one to find it and pay for it.

There is some misunderstanding what means "documentation" for you and
for me, and with "documentation" in the context of free hardware
design it would mean all information necessary to fabricate such
hardware.

It does not mean a "Users' Manual".

> > Like what is really the problem? Is it money you are asking for a project?
> I don't think FSF would have that money, but you may ask them. I am not FSF.
> -- Louis
> 
> None's asking FSF for money, i ask FSF to adjust their approach and respect
> Hardware Freedom with preferably making GPLv4 that reflects that.

So contact them and make your proposal well defined. I would actually
recommend asking an attorney or very literate person to first define
and draft your proposal, to define what you exactly propose, then to
contact the FSF and send them that proposal.

This way you are not well defined yourself and it all appears rather
as quarrel. And people tend to reject quarrels. That way you may not
get support.

We know your intentions are good though.

But your expressions don't come over well. You have to define what you
want. Not quarrel about it.

Invite cooperation, don't generate animosities.

I do not argue, support or reject the meanins on the referenced
website below, but I am showing you that they did define their goals
and visions: https://www.oshwa.org/sharing-best-practices/

In the same way you should be able to define your own goals, policies,
vision and present it in a coherent way.

> FSF is non-profit serving public good (last time i checked) i argue
> that Hardware Freedom is their responsibility as Free Software
> Movement created Hardware Freedom.

The FSF page clearly shows they are serving public good. Well -- it
is like when you wish to say that sky is not blue when there are no
clouds. Am I supposed to argue about already agreed fundamentals?

> > However, what do you want? Do you maybe indirectly ask for funding from
> FSF to create free hardware or what exactly is the plan? -- Louis
> 
> Again i am not interested in funding from FSF i want them to stop taking
> funds from Free Hardware developers by endorsing proprietary
> alternatives.

File an issue with FSF. Be specific, coherent. People will listen.

> i can force them if their CEO promised the release of Hardware files
> after sourcing milions from a crownfunded campaign as that is breach
> of conduct.

It may be, I don't know about it, what I know is that on this mailing
list it is wrong place to file those issues.


-- 
Jean

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

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