On Thursday 11 January 2007 16:11, Timothy Miller wrote:
> I'm sure I'm going to miss things, because I'm writing this from
> memory.  I'm sure that everything I say isn't quite correct either.
> The objective isn't to represent everyone's opinion but the
> collective opinions of most people, so if you're going to correct me,
> tell me what most people think, not what YOU think.  Some evolution
> of this document could be posted somewhere.
>
> --
>
> Recent contact from the FSF has caused us to do some serious thinking
> about the ethical foundations of Free Software and the imact that
> that philosophy should have on our language and nomenclature.  While
> few of us want to get caught up in finer details of the political
> debate, everyone agrees that Free Software is a GOOD THING and should
> be supported wholeheartedly.

Right.

> To that end, many of us have resolved to alter our language.  When
> referring to so-called open source software, we will prefer to use
> the term "Free Software."  And in general, because of the
> user-centric and ethically-oriented nature of the term "Free" we will
> prefer to favor it over "Open" in most contexts, along with other
> synonyms of "Free" like "Freedom," "Libre," "Liberty," etc.

I'm not sure there's complete consensus about this, but I haven't heard 
any big complaints either.

> A running theme in the comments of many is that the terms "Open" and
> "Free" simply don't mean the same things with respect to hardware as
> they do with respect to software.  For instance, the term "Free
> Hardware" is universally disliked as nonsense, with people preferring
> better qualified terms like "Free Hardware Design" (which we have
> adopted).

Right.

> Although we prefer Free Design Hardware, our primary focus is to
> promote any hardware that supports Free Software.  Such hardware need
> not have a Free Design.  To this kind of hardware, the term "Free"
> doesn't readily apply.  The design is not Free, and the
> specifications are not necessarily Free either.  The minimum
> qualification is that the vendor of the hardware has provided
> adequate documentation to write a fully-functional Free Software
> device driver.  This kind of hardware is better described as
> "Revealed," and it most certainly isn't "Liberated."  Therefore, we
> prefer to use the term "Open" to describe this kind of hardware.

I don't recall anyone proposing "Open Hardware" recently. I've seen Open 
Standards-compliant, Free-Standard Hardware, Documented Hardware and 
Freely-Usable hardware though.

> There is no direct link between "Open" in "Open Source Software" and
> "Open" in "Open Hardware."  They mean different things. Moreover, 
> there is no conflict between "Free Software" and "Open Hardware."  We
> believe that Free Software will be more successful with a world full
> of "Open Hardware" than having a handful of "Free Hardware Designs".

Right, that's obvious.

> The term "Open Standard" has been corrupted by people offering
> so-called "RAND" licensing.  Despite that, most don't feel that its
> misuse by others should excessively impact our use of the term.  On
> the other hand, most really like the term "Free Standard" and will
> prefer that term.  One place where we feel "Open" seems highly
> appropriate is in "Open Architecture."

I don't recall.

> In general, we believe that the term "Open" in reference to hardware
> does not carry the same amoral connotation that it does when
> referring to "Open Source Software."  "Open Hardware" describes a
> minimum reasonable level of hardware freedom or revelation but a
> total commitment to Free Software.  As such, we do not feel that it
> is inappropriate to retain the word "Open" in either "Open Graphics
> Project" or "Open Hardware Foundation."

Again, I'm not sure that there is an exact consensus on this.

> That being said, there is room for creative improvements in our names
> that could further improve our reference to our support for Free
> Software.  This is an open issue and will be discussed further.

Right.

Lourens

Attachment: pgpXtxk7uYct6.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)

Reply via email to