On 2007-01-09, Lourens Veen wrote: > However, does it do justice to the (rather large amount, including the > FSF) of people who want hardware with a documented interface, and who > don't care about the design of the internals of that hardware. > > Perhaps the OHF should take this up with RMS directly. That way Timothy > has one less thing to worry about, and the OHF was supposed to > formalise these things anyway (with appropriate opportunities for > comment from the public and so on of course, I'm not suggesting that > this be any less democratic or that it shouldn't be based on broad > consensus). > > I keep getting the feeling that this is not quite what RMS intended. > Which is why I want to ask him directly.
Yes, "The Foundation for Free Hardware Designs" may be too strong. It's maybe not possible to cover both purposes of OHF with a reasonably short and precise name. Describing only the FOSS friendly aspect, the best I can think of is "The Foundation for Free Software Supported Hardware" [1] (FFSSH). It's rather verbose. [1] Sorry if I'm plagiarizing a previous post in this thread. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
