On Tuesday 09 January 2007 02:46, Patrick McNamara wrote: > > Oh, and should Patrick McNamara and the OHF follow suit? Asking him > > to change OHF to something else is about like asking Traversal to > > change its name. Some things are much harder to do, so this is > > entirely up to him and his board members. But I just thought I'd > > mention the idea. > > That would be somewhat difficult right now as it would require filing and > amendment to the articles of incorporation which are currently working > their way through the cog that is the state goverment of Texas. > > I certainly understand RMS' postion on "free" vs "open" and generally agree > with him, though I differ on some points. I am a bit more pragmatic with > an undertone of idealism. Still, I have concerns about using the word > "free" in the title of a hardware project or the Foundation. While it does > pose less of an issue than "open" in terms of confusing meanings, the big > confusion it does have, between free beer and free speech, causes > significant issue with hardware. In the general sense we will never be > producing free as in beer hardware. This means that any packaging or press > materials that reference "free hardware" will cause serious problems in the > general problem. In the lawsuit happy US, I can certain see someone saying > "It said there was free hardware in the box. I didn't get anything free. > I'll sue for false advertising!" So yes that may be an exageration, but > only a little. >
Yeah. It's a little harder to match free as in free softeware (Where the duplication costs are approaching 0 & it costs nothing to provide a copy to your friends) with free as in free hardware, which can have quite large duplication costs and is never (Hmmm... That might bite me :) going to be able to be distributed for free... I think Open matches a lot better the ethos of the OGP. Even if some have 'stolen' the idea of Open to mean only if you can afford the fees to join the club... Just because some have redefined what Open means doesn't strike me as a good idea to play their game & agree... I say stick with the Open name. And redefine Open back to what it should really mean. The way I see Open Hardware is * The freedom to use the hardware, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the hardware works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the register level documentation and interface timing information is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies of documentation so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the hardware, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the register level documentation and interface timing information is a precondition for this. Looks fairly similiar to what was in the previous messages about free software really. But it's the Interface (Register and timings) that are important. Not the arrangement of transistors in the package. (This may be an important point for some people... I think it enables proprietary hardware that simply has a Free & Open interface.. H _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
