Jack Carroll wrote:
>
> Graphics Liberation Project
>
I very much like the concept of "liberation". In this case liberation
from the conditions and burdens of getting access from current hardware
documentation. Liberation from the "old way of doing things",
liberation of the implementation details, etc. However in the current
geopolitical context, "liberation" can also have some very touchy
associations. Hence my earlier suggestion of Hardware Libéré.
I would consider the catagory of Hardware Libéré to be composed of:
*Hardware whose entire implementation down to gate level RTL is
available under GPL compatible licenses.
*Hardware whose entire design and functional documentation is
available under GPL compatible licenses, but implementation details are
not (ie complete design but no RTL).
*Hardware whose complete functional documentation, only, is
available without restriction on use (ie I can write GPL drivers with
complete functionality).
All of these meet the goal of furthering the efforts of free software in
decreasing order of preference, of course.
> Yeah. It's a good descriptive phrase to use early in our
> organization writeups.
> At this stage of the organization's life, I'd say Free Design is
> something we aspire to, rather than something we can promise by a published
> date.
>
And this is one of the reasons I lean towards keeping the current OHF
name. The OHF is about hardware the free/open software developers can
use to it's fullest extent. Right now, that means that we are
supporting a project to design a free GPU implementation. OGP is a
proof of concept and our preferred kind of hardware where we can
actually see how it was created and perhaps make it do something new and
exiting that the original designer didn't think of, or exactly how to
work around a particular bug. This is the kind where we have all the
artifacts that went into making a particular device. However I would
argue that from a free software perspective it would be more important
to have a world full of open hardware than to have a few designs that
are free. The some of the dictionary definition of open (from
dictionary.com):
1. not closed or barred
3. having no means of closing or barring
4. having the interior immediately accessible
5. relatively free of obstructions to sight, movement, or internal
arrangement
10. not covered or closed
11. without a covering, esp. a protective covering; unprotected;
unenclosed; exposed
13. without restrictions as to who may participate
14. accessible or available to follow
18. accessible, as to appeals, ideas, or offers
19. exposed to general view or knowledge; existing, carried on, etc.,
without concealment
20. acting publicly or without concealment, as a person.
Freedom of access to information about the hardware we use is
important. From an end user perspective (someone who wants to run
Linux/BSD/Plan 9/etc) it is actually more important than having access
to the actual design details. It is the hardware documentation that
lets software folks write drivers, not having access to the actual
VHDL/Verilog that describes the hardware.
Anyway, I need stop and give concerted thought to the whole discussion
before I say too much more. I am still trying to formulate arguments
and positions and don't want to end up contradicting myself two emails
later on something I say.
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
