On Sunday 26 November 2006 17:43, Timothy Miller wrote: > On 11/25/06, Lourens Veen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I would call that "Fully documented hardware". > > > > That sounds like it would include hardware for which the > > documentation was only available under NDA. We want documentation > > to exist, and to be available, copyable, and usable by anyone on a > > royalty-free basis. That's an open standard. > > We can quibble about what it means to be a "standard". Just because > something is published royalty-free doesn't mean it's widely accepted > for interoperability or whatever.
But that is a quality issue. Microsoft's new OOXML standard may be an open standard (I'm not sure about the licences involved, but assume for the moment that it is), but it's clear already that noone but they will support it. ODF on the other hand is supported by a whole lot of software suites, with more underway. So, if you as a customer value your freedom of choice, then it's probably better to use ODF. However, if you do use OOXML then you can still switch to a different provider, and pay someone (anyone) to write a converter for your files. Firefox wouldn't be very useful if it supported TIFF and TGA instead of JPEG and GIF, but it would still be free software. > > > With open hardware, lots of things are different. If someone > > > uses a piece of open hardware in a closed way, it's still good > > > for us, because (a) they had to pay for it, and (b) they're > > > dependent on us. The only time their actions are restricted is if > > > they try to DUPLICATE the hardware. Then the IP license comes > > > into effect. Otherwise, the hardware was duplicated by someone > > > authorized to do so, and now it's a physical good that can be > > > bought and sold at will. > > > > But note that you're speaking (I assume) for Traversal Technology, > > LLC here regarding the current situation with OGD1 and OGA1. This > > hardware, if used under the terms of the TT proprietary licence > > rather than an open one, would be proprietary, and as such outside > > the scope of this discussion. > > No. What I'm talking about is not necessarily in the best interests > of Traversal's profit margin. I'm talking about the open IP that > defines the logic of the hardware and how it can be used under open > source terms. > > If someone orders 1000 TRV10 chips, and they pay us for them, we > don't care what they do with those chips. The physical silicon is > their property now. If you bought an OGC1 from me, you wouldn't want > me telling you what you could and could not do with it, right? You're right, I'm sorry. I misread your post. I'm not sure how one would use a physical artefact in a closed way though. Perhaps if you had an open source ball and you wouldn't let anyone else play with it. But if it's your ball... The difference is obviously that physical object naturally have an owner, whereas information doesn't. It doesn't make sense to limit this natural ownership of physical objects artificially. Then we'd be doing the opposite of what copyright law is doing with information. > The only thing we can do to protect ourselves from people duplicating > the logic at the transistor level is to be sneaky and slip in some > logic that is not under a libre license, which others are therefore > not authorized to duplicate. We're still batting around the idea of > doing an open design that is not, at first, also libre. So you can > download the Verilog code, but others are not authorized to turn it > into silicon, resell it, etc. We (Traversal) would never license > anything like this in perpetuity; we (OGP) would do it only as a > means to protect our interests as a nacent project. I can see that, and I think it could be justified. However, I do think that we should not adjust our definition of open to that. That should be a separate discussion, and if that means that the first project is not completely open (but much more open than anything that came before it) then so be it, I think that that is justifiable. After all, the first GNU utilities were written using proprietary tools as well. But ultimately, we should strive for completely open hardware. Whatever we decide that will be :-). > Oh yeah, so let's work on definitions some more: > > "open source hardware" -- You can download (but not necessarily > redistribute) the HDL code, but you may or may not be allowed to > manufacture silicon from it. "Shared Source"? I know it has a bad name, coming from Microsoft and all, but that is what this is. > "libre hardware" -- Not only can (or must) you download and > redistribute the HDL code, but you can also make silicon from it all > you like. Libre, or open. Given the confusion as well as conflation of "free software" and "open source" in daily use, I don't think we should try to use these two words to describe substantially different things. > Traversal may take advantage of this distinction in order to > temporarily have a corner on the market for the physical silicon. > Few will complain about restrictions on their rights to manufacture > silicon from our IP, given that they couldn't afford to do it if they > wanted to. Oh my. I can see a free hardware versus open source hardware rift coming here :-). > In the long term, we'll make the HDL code libre mostly so > that when we want to wash our hands of it, we can do it with a clean > conscience. From my point of view, the puzzle that the OHF is tasked to solve is as follows: "How do we get the general public hardware that gives them all the freedoms they should have" So that means that we have to define the kinds of freedoms that are important, and then given that, try to invent an economic model that can actually make it happen. We need to figure out the business model of all the entities that have to exist to get that hardware to the public. Designers and manufacturers need to be able to make a living from this. Of course, it is hard to predict what the market will do, and we don't know whether the people taking the actual business risks will follow our analysis. Especially in the beginning there will be trial and error involved. And in the end we may have to conclude that it's simply not possible. I don't think that that is likely at all, but I do think that this is a hard puzzle. If you're talking about user freedom then arguably RMS is the authority, especially in this context. So let's look at the spirit of his four freedoms and try to apply it to a device: The freedom to use the device, for any purpose (freedom 0) The freedom to study how the device works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1) The freedom to help your neighbour (freedom 2) The freedom to help the community (freedom 3) Freedom 0 is obvious, and I think everyone would agree with it. So no problem there. Incidentally, open standard compliant hardware would not necessarily give the user this freedom if open standard compliant interfaces was the only criterion for that. You could make an open standard compliant piece of hardware and then use patents on your particular implementation to limit use. Perhaps that should not be allowed even for the "lesser" definition. Freedom 1 would prohibit no-reverse-engineering clauses, and it's hard to imagine open hardware with such a clause. RMS also writes that access to the source code, in our case design documents, is needed for this. For an ASIC, that's probably true. For a simple circuit on a single-sided print it's easy to reverse engineer it (the same goes for a trivial programme by the way). However, in general, providing the design documents isn't much of a burden, since it's generally possible to represent them electronically, and electronic documents are easy to distribute. So, if you get a piece of open hardware, you should get the design documents with it. Freedom 2 is more tricky. You can't normally copy hardware easily, like you could with software if someone came by and saw you use a programme that would be useful for them also. But if you had the ability to duplicate the hardware (again, the simple circuit example) then you should be allowed to do it. Or you should be allowed to pay anyone to do it. Let me get back to that in a moment. Freedom 3 for software is related to improvements and contributing them back to the public. I think that for hardware that maps to improvements to the design, and redistributing modified designs. That's also doable. Let me get back to the right to pay anyone to instantiate a free/open design, or do it yourself. Free software is not just free as in speech, it's also free in that it creates a free market. Free markets are important, because they give the consumer the freedom to choose a producer, and they force the producers to compete for demand. That's good for the consumer. If only one manufacturer is allowed to instantiate a certain design, then the user is not free to choose a manufacturer. That is not good for the user. In the short term, Timothy has voiced his concern about other manufacturers outcompeting TT because they can invest more up front and lower per item prices, and undercut TT. I think that that is a valid concern. Note, however, that that would be good for users, because they would be able to buy hardware at lower prices. The problem is that the other manufacturers will wait for TT to test the waters, and then when they find that it's safe to jump in, jump in and outswim TT. So, at least in the short term, TT is taking all the risk but reaping none of the rewards. In the long term, the cost savings in design by using existing open/free designs and adapting and extending them will weigh up against the risk of being undercut, and going open/free will be a winning proposal. Also, I can see users banding together via the internet to preorder proposed devices, and firms taking their money, designing the thing reusing existing open/free designs, and then outsourcing manufacturing (which is, after all, rather boring) to whoever offers the best deal. Other ideas are also possible. So we seem to mainly have a bootstrapping problem. Until there is enough open/free design hardware available, the deal doesn't work. I think that Timothy's proposed solution of keeping the design under a non-free "shared source" licence for a while, and releasing it under a free/open licence later is a viable solution to this problem, and I would defend such a move. Rome wasn't built in a day, and we have to start somewhere. Even if the first building is somewhat leaky and doesn't have a marble façade it will be better than living in a cave. Lourens
pgpNorMn7gGsH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
