> 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 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. 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. > 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. > Then there is fundamental issue of misunderstanding what those users or original posters want to make free, do they want maybe free hardware designs or free hardware, as the latter means like companies shall distribute computers free of charge. -- Louis I do not support socialism in Computer Science and Hardware engineering as i find it too limiting on resources in US and EU -> I argue for technoliberalism which is supportive of economy of all involved parties. So when i say "Free Hardware" i don't mean "Gratis", but "Freedom". 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) > Me, I like free hardware designs, but I find that as something new to be created. "Free hardware" as term is not distinctive enough. -- Louis I agree that the term "Free Hardware" is terrible i am open to suggestions. FWIW Freedomware/Libreware was proposed referring to a hardware that is both Free Hardware Designs and runs fully Free Software. > Also it becomes accusatory to present hardware manufacturers. -- Louis Hardware manufacturers are irrelevant to the discussion they are just contractors who get the files and manufacture them for a client. > What you are talking about is not "hardware" but the files, data, that can help somebody to build that hardware. -- Louis While i recognize that the documentation is important the main concern is getting the actual files that can be put in a fabricator to be fabricated.. Simply providing a wikimedia page with stripped down schematics like PINE64 is doing is not enough. > You are talking about free patents and free manufacturing rights. -- Louis Yes i am against Hardware Patents as i argue that they is a better option that enables the invention to grow while being significantly more economical for all parties and i argue for measures to make the license of patents accessible to everyone without discrimination or because the patent holder "just doesn't like you". I am not aware of any manufacturing rights that are relevant to this discussion or that are preventing hardware freedom. Manufacturers just get gerber files and they turn it into a real thing the process is same as with using a source code to compile into an executable binary. > 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. > Yes, we speak of files. And it is very simple: > Read this article: > [1]https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html > > I would apply this license for hardware documentation: > [2]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. > 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. > 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!_ > FSF endorsed PureOS. That is free operating system. FSF is for software. It it not for hardware. Though FSF does foster hardware on which free software may run. Thereby it is not relevant if hardware is proprietary. -- Louis If we talk about Hardware Freedom and FSF respecting hardware freedom then it is _critical_ and FSF does not certifies proprietary hardware as "Respects Your Freedom" and promotes it heavily on their websites. > Free Software NEVER MEANT it is free of charge. You are mistaken and it is second time I am noticing it. That you need to "pay to use the device" is not relevant neither to software nor hardware. GNU Deluxe Distribution was sold for US $5,000 -- we don't speak of price in free software. -- Louis Context? I said multiple times that i don't argue for socialism, but for technoliberalism. The ability to sell the hardware/software is recognized as critical. > Your freedom is not in danger. You purchased the phone. But manufacturer is not controlling you, right? -- Louis Wrong, as long as i don't have the relevant files to fabricate the design then my freedom is in danger as i have no idea how exactly the device works and i have no way of changing that. > You can use the phone for any purpose, regardless who you are, you could be of any nationality, sexual orientation, member of any kind of group, use it for good and evil, you name it. No rights neither freedom have been stripped by selling you the phone. Especially not the Librem one. Disagree you can only use the phone in a way the manufacturer and developer allows you to use it as long as they don't give you the required files to fabricate the device yourself. _The documentation is useless and worthless without those_. I agree that discrimination on bases of nationality is not a problem in the EU and sexual orientation is not a problem in US and EU. > Make a group and invite people to create documented hardware designs under free licenses. > *more arguments for how to make documented hardware* -- Louis _documentation is not enough_ How would it help me to have a documentation for e.g. iPhone? I can allegedly know how it works, but i can't fabricate it and so it will just remain being a shiny and useless brick.. > 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. > You mentioned FSF endorsed Purism, but you took it out of the context. FSF endorsed PureOS as free operating system, and PureOS is not equal to Purism. -- Louis FSF _endorsed_ the device multiple times _NOT_ the OS that is not out of the context. > Maybe FSF acknowledged and endorsed Purism as author of fully free distribution of software -- Louis it's just stripped debian is that all it takes for FSF to endorse things like Power Progress Community and open-source smartwatch? > That FSF endorsed Librem as a phone on which fully free operating system can run is also related to software, not hardware. -- Louis How is that important? We can run Fully Free Operating system on anything if you are brave enough to reflow chips and get a chip debugger to write the data on it. Will i get FSF endorsement and RYF certification if i make a business that takes iPhones and makes them run Linux? > And as summary, "FSF does not continously harm free hardware" -- as that is simply not true. It appears as fears, uncertainties and doubts, negative energy, where it does not belong. FSF is the last that would harm free hardware designs, it would rather foster such projects -- Louis strongly dissagree for reasons provided, if this would be truth then FSF would take down RYF and reworked it to reflect hardware freedom, created a new GPLv4 that is designed for hardware and actively endorsed and promoted Free Hardware designs which it never did. > however, it is up to them to decide on that, as they are for software primarily and have bunch of work to do. -- Louis 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. > I think it is unfair how your allegation is being distributed on the mailing list thus damaging the image of FSF. -- Louis I argue that in terms of Hardware Freedom there is nothing more that can be damaged, we can only repair and improve. > A digital watch has software inside showing me the time and date. But that does not mean that my freedoms in software are prevented, because I have never receive that software. It is built-in. I am not invoking it, all what I do is I put battery in the digital watch. -- Louis for a digital watch it wouldn't be a software running it more like a FPGA-like circuit calculating time and translating that into a component that converts that into a time on the display as that takes significantly less energy. > And I have not get any "license" with it, that prevents me using it for whatever purpose I want. -- Louis that may be true, but you can't really adjust it to do your computing e.g. getting a phone and dropping it from 5 cm causes the screen to break and manufacturer intentionally using a mounting that will prevent you to cut the OCA glue and replace the glass. > It is highly questionable if I would be able to help others to have digital watch be decomposing it and studying it inside. -- Louis [3]https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/analog-vs-digital/all it's _very simple_ to make such define and understand how it works! > 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. > But issues of Purism are not relevant to FSF, you can complain to them on that -- Louis Strongly disagree, FSF enables purism to have this business plan and maintain proprietary model. > If you feel you are member of Purism or their customer, and you have got some statement you think is incorrect, let them know. -- Louis Did already, they felt shady about the funding of Librem 5 to release the hardware files. > You can't force companies, it is their property and their business. -- Louis 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. > What you can do is make it hardware documentation and release yourself or from your supported groups. -- Louis Even if i reverse-engineer thing like a pinephone i will be a subject to a lawsuit for violating copyright.. .. You seem to be repeating things to which i already responded, let me know if i missed anyting.
On 2/1/22 08:10, Jean Louis wrote: * Jacob Hrbek [4]<[email protected]> [2022-02-01 06:33]: 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. -- Louis I agree with hypocratic approach and i am open to discussion, please explain clearly what you feel like should be discussed (i think that with past e-mails i've responded to all questions already?). 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. Subject of this thread could be made in a positive way, something like, "How can we support free hardware designs" Then there is fundamental issue of misunderstanding what those users or original posters want to make free, do they want maybe free hardware designs or free hardware, as the latter means like companies shall distribute computers free of charge. Me, I like free hardware designs, but I find that as something new to be created. "Free hardware" as term is not distinctive enough. Also it becomes accusatory to present hardware manufacturers. What you are talking about is not "hardware" but the files, data, that can help somebody to build that hardware. You are talking about free patents and free manufacturing rights. In that context of the data, design, computer and paper files about the hardware that could be manufactured, that is pretty similar to software and that may be published under licenses similar to GPLv3 though I do not think that license is proper. Because original posters or supporters of this discussion did not agree between themselves well enough that causes problems in understanding. 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. While i consider that being able to gift, borrow and sell the hardware is important for Hardware Freedom i mainly meant the hardware files used to fabricate the hardware e.g. sharing a hardware files for a 3D printer with friends and 3rd party. Yes, we speak of files. And it is very simple: Read this article: [5]https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html I would apply this license for hardware documentation: [6]https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL 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. For any hardware you are free to borrow it, if it is yours. But if we speak of documentation for hardware manufacturing then with the free license anybody is free to give such documentation to other people. For any hardware you are free to sell it if it is yours. Unless it is prohibited by government, for example weapon sales may be prohibited. Military software, rocket navigations, radars, all that can be hardware and it could be prohibited. Appeal to your government to try to get freedom to sell it. 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. One shall start bringin solution from the problem. Not bringing solution from a problem which does not exist in real world. Licenses to apply for free hardware designs are same as for documentation and free culture works: GNU Free Documentation License: [7]https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0 [8]https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Understanding Free Cultural Works - Creative Commons [9]https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/freeworks Did anybody prevent you to use hardware for any purpose? -- Louis yes, e.g. the FSF endorsed Purism doesn't enable me to use Librem 5 the way i want as their hardware files are proprietary (excluding stripped down schematics) and i have to pay to be able to use the device (not to say that i am against manufacturers selling the hardware as i find that perfectly acceptable as long as i have all the hardware files needed to build it myself using a libre fabricator). FSF endorsed PureOS. That is free operating system. FSF is for software. It it not for hardware. Though FSF does foster hardware on which free software may run. Thereby it is not relevant if hardware is proprietary. Free Software NEVER MEANT it is free of charge. You are mistaken and it is second time I am noticing it. That you need to "pay to use the device" is not relevant neither to software nor hardware. GNU Deluxe Distribution was sold for US $5,000 -- we don't speak of price in free software. That FSF endorsed PureOS is not relevant to the fact that hardware you got is not documented under free documentation license. Your freedom is not in danger. You purchased the phone. But manufacturer is not controlling you, right? You can use the phone for any purpose, regardless who you are, you could be of any nationality, sexual orientation, member of any kind of group, use it for good and evil, you name it. No rights neither freedom have been stripped by selling you the phone. Especially not the Librem one. I meant being able to get schematics and gerber files to study how the components are wired together, being able to inspect the chip's microcode or wiring (so having access to the shematics of the chip) so that i can look at the physical hardware and interpret the schematics on it to understand it. Make a group and invite people to create documented hardware designs under free licenses. I just don't see how that directly relates to FSF which is for software, not hardware. 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. You mentioned FSF endorsed Purism, but you took it out of the context. FSF endorsed PureOS as free operating system, and PureOS is not equal to Purism. Maybe FSF acknowledged and endorsed Purism as author of fully free distribution of software, but that is only in that context. It is not in the context of endorsing Purism generally, as FSF cannot have possible insights into other company. That FSF endorsed Librem as a phone on which fully free operating system can run is also related to software, not hardware. Thus, I think you are mistaken in your assumptions. And as summary, "FSF does not continously harm free hardware" -- as that is simply not true. It appears as fears, uncertainties and doubts, negative energy, where it does not belong. FSF is the last that would harm free hardware designs, it would rather foster such projects, however, it is up to them to decide on that, as they are for software primarily and have bunch of work to do. I think it is unfair how your allegation is being distributed on the mailing list thus damaging the image of FSF. Many people will read that mailing list, it will remain practically forever in Internet archives. You wanted to say you want to study how hardware works, but then you speak of all the software in the hardware. -- Louis So far i feel like everyone was making a destinction in-between the firmware ran on the hardware e.g. the argument by RMS about the usage of chips and software itself. Personally i see no difference here and i argue that same software freedoms should apply in this case which i don't feel like are sufficiently represented atm. Remember that I told you that seeing differences is important. Not everything is equal. A digital watch has software inside showing me the time and date. But that does not mean that my freedoms in software are prevented, because I have never receive that software. It is built-in. I am not invoking it, all what I do is I put battery in the digital watch. Because digital watch is hardware itself without disconnected software, none of freedoms are problematic. And I have not get any "license" with it, that prevents me using it for whatever purpose I want. It is highly questionable if I would be able to help others to have digital watch be decomposing it and studying it inside. It is much easier to make it myself. I would like that we have free culture and that is where groups in the world are moving to. We want free culture, thus free hardware. But that is not related to FSF continuously harming free hardware, which is not true. I argue that Free Hardware by itself is also important using the definition of hardware with all files that were used to fabricate it released under four freedoms complying license and that can be fabricated on a fabricator that also has all the files needed to build it released under four freedoms complying license including the used components and software run on them. Yes, I would like that type of free culture, so that is something to do. However, what do you want? Do you maybe indirectly ask for funding from FSF to create free hardware or what exactly is the plan? e.g. when you buy a notebook from a seller that the seller is to provide you all of these files. Yes, but you can't force present sellers. What you can do is get funds or put efforts and create such free hardware documentation. But i am mainly interested in Free Hardware Designs as i want to fabricate the hardware myself to mitigate supply-chain attack and adjust the design for my computing. Yes, sure, I would also like that. You have to be distinctive when expressing your plan. Otherwise hardware manufacturers will think you are against them. -- Louis I agree and i also highlight that sustainability is important in this scope so in case of Purism and assuming the assumed lieing about the development cost being true But issues of Purism are not relevant to FSF, you can complain to them on that. If you feel you are member of Purism or their customer, and you have got some statement you think is incorrect, let them know. By releasing the hardware files as is and continueing on selling their devices without changes then that would mean a net loss.. We should establish values to define how the make the development sustainable even with the hardware files released. You can't force companies, it is their property and their business. What you can do is make it hardware documentation and release yourself or from your supported groups. One argument that i am leaning towards is by requiring a fee to those who are producing the hardware commercially as the rules which would make this not acceptable for software are different here, but there are many ways to maintain net-gain i just see this one to require the least amount of resources to implement. Well -- that is beyond the concept of "free software freedoms" to which you also leaned. If it is free culture, it is free culture, let people sell it. I have paid mining engineer to draw CAD files for particular rock grinding machine and I have intentionally made it under free documentation license. But I do not distribute the files online. I give the license to the person purchasing the machine. If that person however makes more money then me, that is their freedom, I gave it to them. It is free culture and I am totally fine with somebody else making money on it. That is what I wanted. And it can seriously change lifes of people. Same as in Software i argue that patents are terrible for hardware, i agree that it's one way to make sure that the resources that you put into developing this invention are returned and multiplied to you, but it's also very restrictive and you can discriminate people from using this invention by just deciding that you won't sell them a license for it which i find as unacceptable. Patents prevent the free culture development. We are people, all part of the oneness, all together, and we shall be sharing benefits with each other. We spend so much resources, efforts, money, time, people, because we do not share with each other. But it would be much cheaper if we would share with each other. And this 21st century would be now lik 31st century, we would be by all means greatly technologically advanced. I am also not against them not granting the right to use and redistribute the changes that they put into their design as long as they are transparent about how much it cost them to develop those changes and how much funding they got so far and once the funding it reached for it to be released under four-freedom complying license, but i also argue that the right to improve and study is to be preserved and the right to use should be reasonable so that e.g. 12yo student can buy it and learn how it works. Leaning to free software freedoms, let people do what they want. Don't ask for conditions. Freedom is without condition. You can't enforce third parties to tell you how much it cost them to develop those changes. Let them be free. You promote freedom. Though you have to review your understanding of it. I find that by using extreme examples you may easier understand freedom. Can I use your software or hardware design to initiate wars and thus kill people? If I am not allowed by the license to do so, that would impair my freedom. That is one extreme example. If the Free Hardware Design uses a proprietary components then that might make it problematic for me to release the improvements with the component on as such the design should be stripped off of such proprietary components and replaced with a stub component explaining what is the component supposed to do to enable better implementation. If it is free hardware design than it cannot use proprietary components, as all of the design would be under free documentation license. FSF endorsed free software distribution is PureOS. Who made the distribution is for FSF irrelevant. Important is that it is fully free software. -- Louis This is false, FSF **DIRECTLY** endorsed the proprietary device Librem 5 [[10]ht tps://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/ethical-tech-giving-guide-freedom-is-the-gift- that-keeps-on-giving] and even at the top of their "Ethical giving guide" [[11]https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v10/] enabling the proprietary developer to adapt their marketing for it [[12]https://puri.sm/posts/librem-5-on-the-free-sof tware-foundations-ethical-tech-gift-giving-guide] at the cost of Free Hardware developers. It did not just "endorse" the device, but "endorsed the device that runs fully free software distribution". The context is important. And you really run after wrong party. If you wish to point out fingers then go to those organization who really abuse your freedom, like Apple, how you said it. I don't even know if you are the double agent of Apple. You could be. FSF is wrong target for that kind of arguments. It is the last target to be accused. And the device is not RYF cerficied so i doubt that it's fully free software. Device or software? You better first make it clear what you talk about. Is it hardware or software? Or hardware in the context of software? Regarding FSF's endorsement of Librem, please see why: [13]https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v10/ -- Louis i dismiss this argument, the "Why" is irrelevant, they directly endorsed the proprietary device so the damage it already done! If they care only about the OS then they should have only endorse the OS itself. Which damage? Look, you do not like that article, whatever some organization said, and you are free to tell us on this mailing list, and you may express your opinions otherwise. If you wish to have your own organization feel free to organize it. I would be happy to register such for you in the US for US $600 -- so just let me know in the private and I will register for you the "Free Hardware Foundation" and you can tell me in which of the US states. I could do the same in Czech Republic as well. FSF means "Free Software Foundation". -- Louis Yes, FSF means "Free Software Foundation" -- RMS is the founder of Free Software Movement and found FSF This movement is what created Hardware Freedom so FSF is the authority on it as evident by so many people using GPLv3 for their hardware and majority of Free Hardware developers being either supporter of FSF or affiliated with FSF. Hardware freedom is not directly relevant to FSF, it may have its roots in software freedom. However, FSF is organization and does not foster hardware. It is FSF. But as I said I can make for you FHF. FSF is not authority on how people license their documentation, hardware documentation or software. FSF promotes free software, but is not making decisions for other people directly, and is thus not "authority" over other people' freedom. It is authority on licensing of free software, but not on the choice and decision making of other people. When other people are supporter of FSF that does not involve FSF with hardware directly. Is there any reference to spyware in Librem 14? -- Louis Yes, i was informed that the CPU is vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown bugs and we have no idea what components are used and how they are wired to say for sure that the device is safe. If that is true, that alone is not spyware. It just opens possibility for spyware. I would say you should retract your original statement, as it is wrong. Neither Spectre nor Meltdown bugs are spyware. How I understand it, you have alleged that Librem has spyware built-in and now you cannot demonstrate that there is reference to spyware in Librem. Thus retract your statement publicly, apologize to Purism/Librem and people on this mailing list, as it was wrong allegation. You have serious misunderstanding of terms on what is a security vulnerability and what is spyware. -- Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: [14]https://www.fsf.org/campaigns In support of Richard M. Stallman [15]https://stallmansupport.org/ -- Jacob Hrbek, In support of ukraine sovereignty #supportUkraine References 1. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html 2. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL 3. https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/analog-vs-digital/all 4. mailto:[email protected] 5. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html 6. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL 7. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL 8. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 9. https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/freeworks 10. https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/ethical-tech-giving-guide-freedom-is-the-gift-that-keeps-on-giving 11. https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v10/ 12. https://puri.sm/posts/librem-5-on-the-free-software-foundations-ethical-tech-gift-giving-guide 13. https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v10/ 14. https://www.fsf.org/campaigns 15. https://stallmansupport.org/
publickey - [email protected] - 1677db82.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
