On Tuesday 09 January 2007 02:37, Timothy Miller wrote: > On 1/8/07, Nicholas S-A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Documented Video Project ? > > > > > > My philosophy has been to show focus first, and then broaden when > > > you can do it safely. I believe there's value in remaining a > > > "Graphics" project for a few reasons. One is that it's a sore > > > spot in the FOSS community, moreso than for any other kind of > > > peripheral, and it will always be that kind of issue. The other > > > is that it shows that we're not getting distrated by so many neat > > > ideas that we never actually make anything. Once the Graphics > > > side has been established, we can create another "Project" that > > > does "everything else," but we should always have the Graphics > > > project as an anchor. > > > > How about Open Documented Graphics Initiative, and for the other > > projects > > we could use Open Documented Project Initiative? > > Or just Documented Graphics Initiative/Documented Project > > Initiative. (I prefer the second one just because it isn't quite as > > nasty to say, but it also > > might tote its crowning benefit strongly enough) > > You're getting the idea. But we should be careful to use the word > "Free" or something like it (Liberated, Freedom, Libre, etc.), rather > than Open, because RMS is being nice to us, and he wants us to do > that.
You wrote originally: "Finally [...] is to come up with terminology to describe the nature of the hardware designs we're producing, using the word "Free". " Did you refer to hardware for which all the source is available, or hardware that is publicly documented? I can't imagine RMS insisting that documented hardware with a proprietary design should be called Free Hardware. In the bit of his message that you quote, he talks about "free hardware designs", clearly referring to hardware designs for which the source is available under liberal terms. If Traversal is going to keep part of the design proprietary, then this thing shouldn't be called the Free Graphics Hardware Project, because the hardware itself isn't free. I am very much against using the term Free Hardware unless the hardware design is available under a permissive licence. Screaming loudly that it is Free Software-compatible is a great idea, but if we start calling proprietary software Free just because it has a Free Software driver then we're seriously diluting the value of the word "Free", which, given that it is prone to misunderstanding, is in enough trouble as is. And part of the OHF's goals is promoting proprietary-but-documented hardware as well, so calling it the Free Hardware Foundation would be a mischaracterisation IMO. However, if you have a bit of hardware that has the full design available under a liberal licence, then that is Free Hardware and it should be called Free Hardware, not "Open Source Hardware". That is what I imagine RMS would like us to do, and I've argued for that right from the beginning. So, how about this (using the EU definition of "Open Standard", see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard#European_Union_definition, although perhaps minus the "maintained by a non-profit and process open to all" part; I'd say that the VGA spec is open enough even if it was defined by a single vendor): 1) "Open Standard Compatible" hardware is hardware whose control interfaces are all compatible with some "Open Standard". It can have inputs or outputs using some proprietary format, just like OpenOffice can read and write Word documents, as long as you can use those inputs and outputs (and all other advertised functionality) via a control interface documented by an "Open Standard". * 2) "Free Hardware" is hardware for which the design is available under a licence that gives its receiver the Four Freedoms (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html, for those who don't know that URL by heart :-)). 3) Both "Open Standard Compatible" hardware and "Free Hardware" are "Free Software compatible". 4) The goal of the Open Graphics Project is to make an "Open Standard Compatible" (and therefore "Free Software compatible") video adapter that will eventually be "Free Hardware" as well. 5) Part of the goals of the Open Hardware Foundation are to promote the creation of "Open Standard Compatible" hardware as well as the creation of "Free Hardware". Perhaps OHF and FSF could cooperate on "Open Standard Compatible/Free Software Compatible" and "Free Hardware/Free Software Compatible" product marks? Lourens *) Do we need a requirement that all functionality is usable without using proprietary inputs and outputs? Would a Free programme that could only read and write Word documents still be Open Standard Compatible as long as the user interface was documented?
pgpkvLNV7E2ty.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)
