http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/2016-August/001865.html
very similarly minded people, unfortunately using the word "open source" in reference to what are clearly libre principles. if anyone has time i'd really appreciate some help... but also i think people here would genuinely appreciate the opportunity to debate, also there's people there from "open ecology" and many other areas.
l.
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:46:33PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/2016-August/001865.html
very similarly minded people, unfortunately using the word "open source" in reference to what are clearly libre principles. if anyone has time i'd really appreciate some help... but also i think people here would genuinely appreciate the opportunity to debate, also there's people there from "open ecology" and many other areas.
There's probably no help with them unless you can show them the useful FLOSS term, point out that the Open Source Definition derives from the Debian Free Software Guidelines (and has since been rather disclaimed by one of its authors).
Libre guarantees slightly more than open source :)
Hope this helsp,
AndyC
l.
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Andrew M.A. Cater amacater@galactic.demon.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:46:33PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/2016-August/001865.html
very similarly minded people, unfortunately using the word "open source" in reference to what are clearly libre principles. if anyone has time i'd really appreciate some help... but also i think people here would genuinely appreciate the opportunity to debate, also there's people there from "open ecology" and many other areas.
There's probably no help with them unless you can show them the useful FLOSS term, point out that the Open Source Definition derives from the Debian Free Software Guidelines (and has since been rather disclaimed by one of its authors).
Libre guarantees slightly more than open source :)
i know that, you know that.... but they've taken the libre definition of the "four freedoms", transliterated it to a hardware world... and called it OPEN HARDWARE (!!!)
l.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net
wrote:
There's probably no help with them unless you can show them the useful FLOSS term, point out that the Open Source Definition derives from the Debian Free Software Guidelines (and has since been rather disclaimed by one of its authors).
Libre guarantees slightly more than open source :)
i know that, you know that.... but they've taken the libre definition of the "four freedoms", transliterated it to a hardware world... and called it OPEN HARDWARE (!!!)
Not perfectly. In theory, really "libre" hardware should make the chip
sources available too. What is classified as "open source hardware" hardly have any non-secret chips, because the definition they came up with allows that.
Best regards,
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 3:04 AM, Cláudio Sampaio patola@gmail.com wrote:
i know that, you know that.... but they've taken the libre definition
of the "four freedoms", transliterated it to a hardware world... and called it OPEN HARDWARE (!!!)
Not perfectly. In theory, really "libre" hardware should make the chip
sources available too.
mmm... i'd call that "libre chips" or "libre silicon" not "libre hardware", to make the distinction. awkward that "hardware" is a generic term that could cover both... blegh.
l.
hmm well, do people have less issues with "copyleft hardware"? for a alt term to libre hardware. just a wonder.
libre hardware sounds good to me. to me hardware = in general, on the whole, the pcb, the most firmwares -ie what the arduino like chip this does, wifi hopefully, boot code.- hmm ill have to ask others what hardware means to them.
On 24/08/16 05:05, Alexander .S.T. Ross wrote:
to me hardware = in general, on the whole, the pcb, the most firmwares
most=all but tiny tiny things that the techys would moan about one even worrying about, basically i was covering my self.
-ie what the arduino like chip this does, wifi hopefully, boot code.-
El Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 05:05:46AM +0100, Alexander .S.T. Ross deia:
libre hardware sounds good to me.
It sounds well but I don't really know the definitions out there and the stablished usage of terms. Arguing about words is tricky, specially without verily through understanding of their use. Ethimology or synthetic meaning from name components only gets you so far. Words mean what people take them to mean.
hmm ill have to ask others what hardware means to them.
Software is information on how to solve a problem with a computer, hardware is the computer, wetware is the users who have the problem (including developers).
For me anything hard to change is hardware, anything easy to change is software. Hence the sensible FSF position on software on ROMs being like hardware and software in EEPROMs being like software.
Then the question comes of hard _for whom_ to change. With signed blobs there is software that is only soft for the vendor, not for the users. With unsigned proprietary software the user may be able to uninstall and replace it, but not do modifications, so it is softer for the vendor than for the consumer. Free software is real soft for everyone involved. Copyleft software is real soft for everyone involved forever. Yet free software project governance can change a little its stiffness and fragility. Hence that NASA engineer phrase "if it ain't source, ain't software". I'd say "if it isn't source, it isn't soft enough software".
Another question is _when_ something is software and when it is hardware. In my view IP blocks start as software, maybe files written in Verilog, VHDL or more modern languages, and gets passed around and adapted. Then it is transformed to some other forms of software, and in the fab it becomes hardware (no it doesn't, some copies of it are made which are hardware, not exact copies, and the original software, the hardware design remains, but the user often doesn't see it). Now nobody can change it anymore (the hardware design can evolve into different hardware, but the hardware copies can't be changed). Just like catle is catle when it's alive and meat when killed, then you can only eat it but you can't make it grow, milk it or breed and grow your herd. So all farmers try to have some cattle breed before killing it.
Software becomes hardware when put in a ROM ? And in a CDROM ? It depends. You can usually easily exchange a CDROM for another, you can also copy it to RW media, and modify it. So your dead cow can be resurrected. It's easier to just say the cow wasn't dead. Then there are DRM and copy protection tricks that make life harder for your veterinary. You may be able to change a socketed ROM but still need to have one etched with the new software and that is not too easy if it isn't an EEPROM.
That interpretation works for me, but I'm not aware of being official or wildly supported. It's simplistic and can be in trouble with details, but it's "good enough" defining. People get confused with firmware, FPGAs, efuses, etc. Hardware developers have it more difficult, because they don't look at things from the end of project perspective, so they don't see it like users. They (mostly) think on how to make hardware better when it still is software. So they tend to forget it won't be hardware until they stop improving it. They modify software but they are really thinking on the effects on the hardware copies (in extreme cases they may even think on the distortions introduced by the copy-to-hardware process). Just like farmers might apply decisions to live cattle thinking on the taste or health effects in the meat, and that does not make them cooks. And the copy of the designs, which stays software, can breed and produce improved new hardware revisions, which will again be software until they're done and become hardware. Just like the farmer can selectively breed to get better meat in future generations.
Last time I saw RMS at a conference he was asked about Libre hardware (or similar, I don't remember the exact terms) and he answered more or less that libre hardware doesn't exist, at least until we get some photocopier for circuits, but libre hardware designs are very good (but out of scope for him). More or less. I don't remember well. I could look it up if it is recorded. The distiction is important but it is understandably to just say libre hardware meaning "hardware which comes with its libre hardware designs so the user can play farmer (or hire farmers)".
And it seems some people are buying live cows. 78% of funds at 97% of days, but 509 compute cards, 41 pass through cards, and 100 laptops (assembled or kits). According to lkcl that makes into viable territory for the laptop too... (although the criteria is not clear, lkcl has already said it is better to leave the detailed analysis for after the campaign, one of the early updates projected 500 cards and 140 laptops and thought it OKish, at some point he said if there were 500 cards it might do with just 100 laptops, and the last message there concentrates on capital for travel, development and sustenance).
https://pyra-handheld.com/boards/threads/really-cool-modular-and-freedom-res...
Btw. luke, this patch might "donate" 180$ to you ? http://rhombus-tech.net/crowdsupply/assess_campaign.py --- assess_campaign.py 2016-08-24 09:39:14.925861053 +0200 +++ assess_campaign4.py 2016-08-24 09:45:14.025302579 +0200 @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
# PCB etc. extras (test, packaging, shipping) sticker_cost = 4.0 + 3.0 -tshirt_cost = 20.0 + 5.0 # QTY 20 is $10 +tshirt_cost = 10.0 + 5.0 # QTY <20 is $20 cc_cost = 30.0 + 10.0 laptop_cost = 166.0 + 120.0 desktop_cost = 20.0 + 10.0 @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ print "spare:", spare print "nres: ", nres print "after nres:", spare - nres -cards = num_eoma68_a20s + num_breakouts +cards = num_eoma68_a20s + num_passthroughs sockets = num_desktops + num_laptops + num_breakouts print "total MOQ cards", cards print "total MOQ sockets", sockets
On 2016-08-24 at 09:54:35 +0200, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
For me anything hard to change is hardware, anything easy to change is software. Hence the sensible FSF position on software on ROMs being like hardware and software in EEPROMs being like software.
I find that definitions based on how easy it is to change something tend to put the actual dividing line in places that feel arbitrary, especially because what is easy for somebody is very hard for somebody else.
In this specific case, additionally, the dividing line is placed in such a way that IMHO gives advantages to state-sponsored attackers (for whom changing code stored on ROM is not exactly easy, but somewhat feasible) and even technical users (that in most case don't have access to the tools needed to do so).
A definition that I like comes from Renzo Davoli and is basically that hardware is made of atoms, software is knowledge.
With this definition, programs are of course software, firmware is software, verilog descriptions of a CPU are software, board designs are software (but not the boards themselves), and also culture, literature, music etc. are software, and kitchen recipes, but not the actual dishes that you eat.
This way, the difference is a deep one: if I give somebody a piece of hardware, I no longer have it, in a zero sum game, while if I give somebody a piece of software we both have it and the total value for humanity has grown.
Of course, under this definition, today in 2016 it is impossible to buy a computer¹ whose software is completely free. My personal pragmatic position is that buying (and in certain case using) things is ok from a freedom point of view as long as they have a bit more free software than the current standard (either as sold or after I've changed stuff that is easy — and legal — *for me* to change, depending on the context and the kind of market).
e.g. in 2016 an A20 based board that respects the definition of Open Hardware from OSHWA is fine, but if in 2026 we'll have a SoC for which the verilog sources are available a board based on a proprietary chip like the A20 won't be fine anymore, even if I have no practical way to get advantage of the difference.
¹ using in this case the very imprecise and personal definition of "something on which I can run a text editor, vi-based, thanks, and a graphical web browser, with the ability to connect to the internet"
El Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 09:07:13AM +0200, Elena ``of Valhalla'' deia:
I find that definitions based on how easy it is to change something tend to put the actual dividing line in places that feel arbitrary, especially because what is easy for somebody is very hard for somebody else.
Yes, I acknowledged this problem. We may have to accept that some things are softer for some people than for others, and strive for more softness for more people.
In this specific case, additionally, the dividing line is placed in such a way that IMHO gives advantages to state-sponsored attackers (for whom changing code stored on ROM is not exactly easy, but somewhat feasible) and even technical users (that in most case don't have access to the tools needed to do so).
You mean intercepting postal packets or sabotages in douanes or check control points ? I don't know how to protect from that (at least without imposing too cumbersone measures to normal use by the legitimate user).
A definition that I like comes from Renzo Davoli and is basically that hardware is made of atoms, software is knowledge.
I like it because of its ontological root. And it is more generally useful, like in control of forces of nature is hardware patents and logical solutions are software patents (although this distiction would only make sense if patent offices tried to do something useful, and even then there's doubt whether they could). In this sense your definition is better.
In my message I called software "information", not knowledge, because in the uses I've come across knowledge is reserved for the interiosation of interrelated information by humans, it is what information provokes in you (and let's not get started in strong AI). But yes, if you take humans into the picture, software is knowledge and it is even culture.
In practical application you have the problem that knowledge exists in an abstract form, but is handled in concrete representations, and those representations are always physical, so people can circumvent definitions by alluding that they are handling representations, not the knowledge itself. So a tivoized device may not hide any information or knowledge but it may prevent you from changing the representation that the device will use. It won't prevent you from working freely with the knowledge, "just" with the device.
And your definition has more or less the same problem as mine. Knowledge may be secret, so something may be knowledge for some people and not for others, just like something may be easier to change for some people than others. Compiled proprietary software is software in a degenerated way, but it is. And the source is only available for some, for the rest of us it is very opaque information, you can hardly call that knowledge at all. So it is knowledge for the authors, not for the users.
With this definition, programs are of course software, firmware is software, verilog descriptions of a CPU are software, board designs are software (but not the boards themselves), and also culture, literature, music etc. are software, and kitchen recipes, but not the actual dishes that you eat.
ACK. Your definition and mine are very close. In fact you just have to add a fact to make them roughly equivalent: Knowledge is easier to change than atoms. (it works better with information, some knowledge is harder to erase). This is not a general truth (or stomach rearranges atoms as easily as our brain rearranges knowledge), but I think it applies to computers.
This way, the difference is a deep one: if I give somebody a piece of hardware, I no longer have it, in a zero sum game, while if I give somebody a piece of software we both have it and the total value for humanity has grown.
That kind of properties is very useful to retain yes, and comes easier from your definition than mine (if you forget I firstly said software is information).
Of course, under this definition, today in 2016 it is impossible to buy a computer¹ whose software is completely free.
Yes, with my definition it is quite difficult too, but not quite impossible. In fact that's why I'm here.
My personal pragmatic position is that buying (and in certain case using) things is ok from a freedom point of view as long as they have a bit more free software than the current standard (either as sold or after I've changed stuff that is easy — and legal — *for me* to change, depending on the context and the kind of market).
So your goal is your utopy? Or do you think you could eventually achieve it?
I'm not sure I understand you. What you want is a computer, so a certain collection of atoms, that embodies some information and you want to be able to freely use all the embodied knowledge. So for you that includes software and hardware designs (both are the computer software for you, right?). An then the hardware designs have been applied to atoms according to some electronics process you may also want to know, along with the physical properties of gates, materials, and energies. And the physical models that describe how the properties interact dynamically, so basically all of chemistry, physics and electronics solved for good and finished ?
So what you call a computer whose software is completely free is what I'd call a computer whose software is completely free and its hardware follows free hardware designs available to you ? Or what's exactly the knowledge you want to be free to use ? (more than yesterday, I guess, ever more).
I want that too (I just may call it something different?).
e.g. in 2016 an A20 based board that respects the definition of Open Hardware from OSHWA is fine, but if in 2026 we'll have a SoC for which the verilog sources are available a board based on a proprietary chip like the A20 won't be fine anymore, even if I have no practical way to get advantage of the difference.
I like your future :)
On 2016-08-25 at 10:23:04 +0200, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
El Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 09:07:13AM +0200, Elena ``of Valhalla'' deia:
In this specific case, additionally, the dividing line is placed in such a way that IMHO gives advantages to state-sponsored attackers (for whom changing code stored on ROM is not exactly easy, but somewhat feasible) and even technical users (that in most case don't have access to the tools needed to do so).
You mean intercepting postal packets or sabotages in douanes or check control points ? I don't know how to protect from that (at least without imposing too cumbersone measures to normal use by the legitimate user).
yes, stuff like that, and I don't really know how to protect from them either.
But surely having the code in ROM doesn't really help in that case, while when the code is loaded at runtime one could in theory just load new code from a different source. Doesn't really work in practice because there is something else accepting that code that is stored in something like a ROM and could have been changed to silently ignore it.
[...] In my message I called software "information", not knowledge, because in the uses I've come across knowledge is reserved for the interiosation of interrelated information by humans, it is what information provokes in you (and let's not get started in strong AI). But yes, if you take humans into the picture, software is knowledge and it is even culture.
Yes, information may be a better term, altought they can be seen as two faces of the same entity (and thus, don't change the set of things that are hardware or software under the original definition)
So a tivoized device may not hide any information or knowledge but it may prevent you from changing the representation that the device will use. It won't prevent you from working freely with the knowledge, "just" with the device.
Well, a tivoized device will probably allow me to work freely with some of the information, but not other (the ones involved with preventing you access to the device itself, for one thing)
And your definition has more or less the same problem as mine. Knowledge may be secret, so something may be knowledge for some people and not for others, just like something may be easier to change for some people than others. Compiled proprietary software is software in a degenerated way, but it is. And the source is only available for some, for the rest of us it is very opaque information, you can hardly call that knowledge at all. So it is knowledge for the authors, not for the users.
Yes, software is information/knowledge, not necessarily *free* knowledge, but in my definition it's stuff for which it is reasonable to ask the question "is it free?"
My personal pragmatic position is that buying (and in certain case using) things is ok from a freedom point of view as long as they have a bit more free software than the current standard (either as sold or after I've changed stuff that is easy — and legal — *for me* to change, depending on the context and the kind of market).
So your goal is your utopy? Or do you think you could eventually achieve it?
In theory, I think that it could be reached, but I'm not sure if the market forces will ever allow it.
I would be happy even to see constant improvements, even if the actual aim wasn't reached in my lifetime, so yes, there is a bit of utopy in it.
I'm not sure I understand you. What you want is a computer, so a certain collection of atoms, that embodies some information and you want to be able to freely use all the embodied knowledge. So for you that includes software and hardware designs (both are the computer software for you, right?). An then the hardware designs have been applied to atoms according to some electronics process you may also want to know, along with the physical properties of gates, materials, and energies. And the physical models that describe how the properties interact dynamically, so basically all of chemistry, physics and electronics solved for good and finished ?
well, no, I would stop at the process phase, described in a way that can be reproduced, including the building of relevant tools, even if in practice some of this information is going to be too expensive for most people to actually use (and, more importantly, there are serious practical issues with bootstrapping the equipement required to do so).
In the basic sciences there are significant issues with the dissemination of information, but at least people working on them tend to share the principles that knowledge should be available and not kept secret. And there is no need for them to be solved for good: engeneering has been working on phisical principles that are wrong for a long time, and continue to do so with success (afaik e.g. bridges are still being build while happily ignoring quantum mechanics and relativity :) ) Of course, this is basically to say, that I also want this information / knowledge to be free, up to the limits of human knowledge, but I think that as an issue it's transversal to the actual building of free computers.
So what you call a computer whose software is completely free is what I'd call a computer whose software is completely free and its hardware follows free hardware designs available to you ? Or what's exactly the knowledge you want to be free to use ? (more than yesterday, I guess, ever more).
I want that too (I just may call it something different?).
yes
under my definition, you could say that "free hardware" is hardware for which the "design software" is free.
thank you to everyone for chipping in, here, i have to run, i'm on the move for the day, i'll be able to catch up over the next few days. l.
El Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 05:40:28PM +0200, Elena ``of Valhalla'' deia:
So a tivoized device may not hide any information or knowledge but it may prevent you from changing the representation that the device will use. It won't prevent you from working freely with the knowledge, "just" with the device.
Well, a tivoized device will probably allow me to work freely with some of the information, but not other (the ones involved with preventing you access to the device itself, for one thing)
No, I don't know what happened historically, but it is theoretically possible to envision a signature check system in some inalterable ROM that enforces tivoization, is published and even freely licensed, but yet it prevents you to exercise your freedoms on the device.
For me that would be the hardware preventing your free use of the device. For you it might be the software, but the point is you won't be able to use the device as you should be able, even if you could change the signature check system and build another device that lets you do it.
Yes, software is information/knowledge, not necessarily *free*
Software could be free and secret (if everyone involved wants to keep it secret including all users) but that extreme is beside the point.
knowledge, but in my definition it's stuff for which it is reasonable to ask the question "is it free?"
And hardware can't be free ? You mean because it can't be replicated ?
In theory, I think that it could be reached, but I'm not sure if the market forces will ever allow it.
I would be happy even to see constant improvements, even if the actual aim wasn't reached in my lifetime, so yes, there is a bit of utopy in it.
Ok
well, no, I would stop at the process phase, described in a way that can be reproduced, including the building of relevant tools, even if in practice some of this information is going to be too expensive for most people to actually use (and, more importantly, there are serious practical issues with bootstrapping the equipement required to do so).
I see. So yes, achievable in theory.
under my definition, you could say that "free hardware" is hardware for which the "design software" is free.
In mine too. The design of the hardware is modifiable, so it is software. I think the difference is that when I say "free software for this computer" I don't include hardware designs, when I say "free hardware" I mean hardware for which there are free designs.
For me anything hard to change is hardware, anything easy to change is software. Hence the sensible FSF position on software on ROMs being like hardware and software in EEPROMs being like software.
[...]
A definition that I like comes from Renzo Davoli and is basically that hardware is made of atoms, software is knowledge.
ROMs are made of atoms whose internal organization defines the behavior. And while you can pass to someone a copy of the "source" (or binary) for that ROM, it's not the same as the ROM (the person has to build the ROM based on that code), so I think Renzo's definition very agrees that ROM is hardware.
Of course, under this definition, today in 2016 it is impossible to buy a computer¹ whose software is completely free.
I think the usual A20 boards qualify: they have some ROM holding proprietary code within the SoC, but since that's hardware it's OK, and you can run pure Free Software on it (you may need proprietary software if you want to use MALI, and you may also need proprietary firmware to use surrounding wifi chips, of course).
Stefan
I think this talk of atoms that treats physical things like they exist and information as if it were a figment of reality misses the fundamental physics of it that information does exist (unless it gets recorded and output on TV)
Russell If failing were hard it would be called falling
On 25 August 2016 at 14:35, Stefan Monnier monnier@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
For me anything hard to change is hardware, anything easy to change is software. Hence the sensible FSF position on software on ROMs being like hardware and software in EEPROMs being like software.
[...]
A definition that I like comes from Renzo Davoli and is basically that hardware is made of atoms, software is knowledge.
ROMs are made of atoms whose internal organization defines the behavior. And while you can pass to someone a copy of the "source" (or binary) for that ROM, it's not the same as the ROM (the person has to build the ROM based on that code), so I think Renzo's definition very agrees that ROM is hardware.
Of course, under this definition, today in 2016 it is impossible to buy a computer¹ whose software is completely free.
I think the usual A20 boards qualify: they have some ROM holding proprietary code within the SoC, but since that's hardware it's OK, and you can run pure Free Software on it (you may need proprietary software if you want to use MALI, and you may also need proprietary firmware to use surrounding wifi chips, of course).
Stefan
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On 2016-08-25 at 09:35:12 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
A definition that I like comes from Renzo Davoli and is basically that hardware is made of atoms, software is knowledge.
ROMs are made of atoms whose internal organization defines the behavior.
yes, and the description of that internal organization, whatever the format, is software
And while you can pass to someone a copy of the "source" (or binary) for that ROM, it's not the same as the ROM (the person has to build the ROM based on that code), so I think Renzo's definition very agrees that ROM is hardware.
of course the actual chip is hardware, but if somebody had the information stored on it in some other form, with the right tools and the right skills they could "easily" remove those atoms and change them with other atoms with the same information — or with a modified version of it.
It's not that different from a paper book: there you have an arrangement of ink atoms on a paper substrate that is hardware, but the knowledge provided by the book is software. As with a paper book, sharing the information/knowledge is not as trivial as with information in a non-encoumbered digital format, but with some work it is perfectly feasible to do so in a way that doesn't deprive the original owner of it.
And besides, also hard disks (and solid state memories, etc.) store stuff as an arrangement of atoms, it's just that those also provide a convenient interface both to read and to change it.
Of course, under this definition, today in 2016 it is impossible to buy a computer¹ whose software is completely free.
I think the usual A20 boards qualify: they have some ROM holding proprietary code within the SoC, but since that's hardware it's OK, and you can run pure Free Software on it (you may need proprietary software if you want to use MALI, and you may also need proprietary firmware to use surrounding wifi chips, of course).
I don't think so, at all.
The knowledge on how the A20 internals are made is not freely available: even if I had access to the right expensive equipment I couldn't legally produce one. The same applies to the handful of task-specific chips that those boards usually have. Then there is that proprietary code, that is stored in hardware, but is very much software. And then of course whatever comes around it (mali drivers, wifi chips, disk firmwares, etc.)
The A20 boards are fine (for me) today because there is nothing that is significantly more free that is able to do the same things, just like running GNU on a proprietary kernel was fine in the 80s before a free kernel was available, but it still very far from the ideal.
On Tuesday 23. August 2016 23.46.33 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/2016-August/001865.html
very similarly minded people, unfortunately using the word "open source" in reference to what are clearly libre principles. if anyone has time i'd really appreciate some help... but also i think people here would genuinely appreciate the opportunity to debate, also there's people there from "open ecology" and many other areas.
I might subscribe and add something. Even if I end up telling people things they already know and/or don't care about, I can always recycle the content for a blog post later. ;-)
Hardware people like to tell everyone that hardware isn't software. I was looking at Verilog tutorials and resources a while ago and "this isn't like programming" came up quite a bit. (I suspect that many people writing such things haven't done the kind of programming that computer science graduates will have done: we don't spend three or four years dabbling in C and Visual Basic. They wouldn't write such things if they knew about logic programming, functional programming, software specification languages, and so on.)
But while I think that there is agreement (or acceptance) that the rules are different with hardware, that patents tend to be used to limit "cloning" of products, licences like the CERN Open Hardware Licence attempt to oblige those using "open source hardware" designs to make and distribute products under certain conditions. On the one hand, people say that you can at most only infringe the copyright of the designs if you just take them and make a "cloned" product (which is why they like patents), whereas the CERN OHL actually seems to assume that you can impose conditions on the production of a design through a copyright licence.
(Also, patents get used to define how the product is made when trying to prevent "cloning", which is supposedly what various industries rely on instead of copyright, even though I imagine that some industries may be seeking highly unethical patents that do nothing more than describe discoveries.)
Arguing about naming could be a waste of time. If "open source hardware" gets some kind of message across without misunderstanding, then maybe it is sufficient. However, having seen use of "open hardware" discouraged and "open source hardware" encouraged instead, I predict a similar level of wider confusion and uncertainty as the widely-debased term "open source" attached to "hardware" gets used in all sorts of unintended ways. "Open" plus something is also rather untrustworthy: it may have referred to interoperability a while ago, but now it gives no guarantees at all; terms like "open standards" have tried to retain their credibility, but there are still controversies about "RAND", "FRAND" and other nasty traps that give claims of openness little face value.
Paul
El Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 01:54:27PM +0200, Paul Boddie deia:
Hardware people like to tell everyone that hardware isn't software. I was looking at Verilog tutorials and resources a while ago and "this isn't like programming" came up quite a bit. (I suspect that many people writing such things haven't done the kind of programming that computer science graduates will have done: we don't spend three or four years dabbling in C and Visual Basic. They wouldn't write such things if they knew about logic programming, functional programming, software specification languages, and so on.)
ACK
But while I think that there is agreement (or acceptance) that the rules are different with hardware, that patents tend to be used to limit "cloning" of products, licences like the CERN Open Hardware Licence attempt to oblige those using "open source hardware" designs to make and distribute products under certain conditions. On the one hand, people say that you can at most only infringe the copyright of the designs if you just take them and make a "cloned" product (which is why they like patents), whereas the CERN OHL actually seems to assume that you can impose conditions on the production of a design through a copyright licence.
I always thought this was nuts (copyright on the design having anything to do with the production of the designed thing) but then I came across one of those news pieces that reveal the awe of human stupidity:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/uk-copyright-extension-designed-o...
Arguing about naming could be a waste of time. If "open source hardware" gets some kind of message across without misunderstanding, then maybe it is sufficient. However, having seen use of "open hardware" discouraged and "open source hardware" encouraged instead, I predict a similar level of wider confusion and uncertainty as the widely-debased term "open source" attached to "hardware" gets used in all sorts of unintended ways. "Open" plus something is also rather untrustworthy: it may have referred to interoperability a while ago, but now it gives no guarantees at all; terms like "open standards" have tried to retain their credibility, but there are still controversies about "RAND", "FRAND" and other nasty traps that give claims of openness little face value.
I don't really know if one can easily extrapolate from software to hardware. I would concentrate (if I have the time to investigate it) in what are the definitions attached to the terms and what are the uses around. If open source hardware sticks, and carries a definition along the 4 freedoms, and people use it well it might even work against "open source software" original intent. One day it might backfire from hardware to software and might start expecting freedom from open source software too...
I'd be more interested in thing like if an open source hardware license or definition requires free software too produce the design, or to operate the machine or something, that it is called free software and not open source software.
The world "open" is too open to interpretation, I think we should treat each usage independently "open source software" may mean something not really related to "open source hardware" and "open standards".
And "libre hardware" can be as easily abused as "open source hardware" if there is money to be made abusing it.
I don't know how helpful this is, but here are my usual definitions. For the record, I'm a hardware kinda guy.
* If I can touch it, it's hardware. * If it's made of code/programming, and it's on computer media, inside a computer, or in a ROM chip that runs the system, it's software, *except*... * ...if it's in a chip that isn't a ROM (or acting as ROM), it's firmware. * ...if it's in a ROM chip (or a chip acting as ROM), *and* it's not got the controlling program for the entire system, it's also firmware. * ...if it's hardcopy, it's of course a program listing. * ...if it's not a binary, it's of course source code.
"Acting as a ROM" covers Flash memory (which is technically nonvolatile RAM, aka NVRAM) and systems that (stupidly IMO) use battery-backed static RAM instead of a real ROM -- and other similar schemes that I'm not aware of.
The 'if it's in a ROM chip and it runs the system, it's software' idea covers systems that run an OS from ROM, whether or not they act as one would recognize a computer in the modern sense. (It specifically excludes the PC BIOS, though, and things like it.) That covers eg the Commodore 64 --and, in fact, most late-'70s and '80s computers-- but it also covers the 6502-based system I'm using to learn a bit about how those are programmed at an assembly level, even though *that* system's entire purpose and function is to push a hard-coded ASCII message to a weird TTL-serial LCD I own. Some argument could be made that I should shut up and toss these use cases in with firmware, but for some reason I can't adequately explain, that somehow doesn't feel right.
arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
-
Alexander .S.T. Ross -
Andrew M.A. Cater -
Christopher Havel -
Cláudio Sampaio -
Elena ``of Valhalla'' -
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton -
Paul Boddie -
Russell Hyer -
Stefan Monnier -
Xavi Drudis Ferran