Power, Memory and Schematics

[WizardStan]

Sulu: What references are you lacking?

They're liooking for some governing body that officially defines "open hardware- the way you are using it, similar in the way that OSHWA has defined it.
The problem with that, of course, is that there is no such governing body and there never will be because there doesn't need to be and it would only lead to ruin: OSHWA came first so they are the leaders as far as people like sulu are concerned.
The actual problem with that, and the reason I suspect you keep bringing up software licenses, is that because they were first they were free to define "open hardware" however they wanted and then effectively write it into law as it were. The supplementary problem with that being that they've defined "open hardware" differently from "open software". Open software and Free software are different terms for very good reasons.What OSHWA has done is defined open hardware as the hardware equivalent of "free as in freedom" with no regard of the nuance between previously established "open" and "free" terms: either something is "open" and gives all the rights outlined, or it is lumped in with entirely closed off hardware.
In my mind this is an incredibly dangerous distinction to fail to make.
The legend is that RMS started the open source movement after getting frustrated with a bug in a printer driver: if he had had access to the source for the driver he could have fixed it; if the source were "open like a book" then he could read it and improve upon it."Free" software was eventually defined as a superset of that, giving you the right to then also distribute your changes.
Then we look at hardware: for hardware to be "open" you must also be able to sell it? That doesn't even make sense linguistically.
But more to the point, this is dangerous because it's lacking the distinction of things you can modify vs things you can't. The future of hardware is already here, vendors are putting their hardware behind DRM and proprietary systems. The days where you could legally repair your own stove or TV may be coming to an end, and this is why I consider OSHWA's definition so dangerous: there is no longer a simple term to differentiate between hardware you can modify and hardware you cannot.If EvilDragon releases a handheld and says "here's everything about the hardware, everything you need to know to repair and improve upon it if you have the inclination" there is no longer a word for just that right which separates it from a Nintendo handheld: because you cannot sell the documentation (the hardware itself can be sold, the license only restricts the specs) it may as well be defined as closed and proprietary.
And this is literally the only thing I'm going to say on the subject.

 

[ible]

very well said. "open", like "freedom", has multiple levels (in the software community as well as the hardware community). i'd honestly consider a software license myself which restricts the sale of the software i've created -- i want people to know it's free. wouldn't stop me from selling hardware with it included, though.. at any rate, not things i've thought about fully.

but it is important to note, as WizardStan says, that OSHWA doesn't define hardware openness, just like FSF doesn't define software freedom. that's up to you to define and appreciate, wherever you find it, in whatever measure.

 

[shaddim]

Open software and Free software are different terms for very good reasons.What OSHWA has done is defined open hardware as the hardware equivalent of "free as in freedom" with no regard of the nuance between previously established "open" and "free" terms: either something is "open" and gives all the rights outlined, or it is lumped in with entirely closed off hardware.
In my mind this is an incredibly dangerous distinction to fail to make.
.

If fully agree that extremistic positions and licenses might have the worst impact on any kinds of open/free ecosystems. (e.g. see the downfall of the copyleft ecosystem due to the splitting push of the FSF with the GPLv3)

Therefore I liked Lawrence Lessig's Creative Commons and their approach with the CC license spectrum so much (including NC options which still allows remixing, the original goal of Lessig): pragmatic and non-repulsive, offering options, encouraging, not enforcing "freedom" (like the FSF).

there is no longer a simple term to differentiate between hardware you can modify and hardware you cannot
.

Tthere was no clear name before right? The goal of the CC was also to have finally clear reliable license(s) and to some degree with it terminology for such use cases. On which they succceded: CC BY-NC-SA, (and all above) full-fill your need. Ok, we could grieve now that it is not one or that is no well established name for the "open for repair group", but I think the "remixable" bracket fits here well enough, it is an subaspect.

Being available "open", while not under free/open license at all & therefore fully proprietary, offers already according to Bernstein many benefits for society and users: repairs, adaptions for personal use and not being orphaned / lost forever. About DRM and the right to fix your own stuff: John Deer and tractors... the horrible future in general?

So, indeed, the situation with the Pyra schematic license is not as bad as it could be or the complaints might indicate. (From my perspective the main problem was and is the original undefindness what we could expect, if this license would have been clear from the beginning it would have been fine.)

 

[comradekingu]

OSHWA did not come first, far from it. They are one taker of many to the open hardware nomenclature. They are not in any way shape or form trying to claim that term for themselves or do open as in anything but the open hardware we have had for ages.
Predating btw, the term open hardware.

The reason we have it, and why a sentiment like this, is because of the hacker ethos. No more closely does that align with anything but user freedom. Which is why free software, if a bit of a duality in its English meaning, is a defined term that makes sense.

--------------

The only thing copyleft splits is people who can substantiate an argument and those who cant.

It takes olympic level mental gymnastic artistry to speak of open as something different than open license, while conflating open as in license with free.
To claim this double-think "open" is different from open, or free, in that it must be fully proprietary, is a fundamental misunderstanding of what proprietary means.

Things can _not_ be fully proprietary, if they are open in any sense.

Funny how the Creative commons doesn't like its own non-commercial license.
Funny nr.2 about who fought John Deere.

They used btw, digital millennium provisions of copyright law to support their claim. You linked to something from the 90s saying people should be somehow worried about free software.

The day reverse engineering Microsoft products being as easy as exercising your right to compile, patch study etc free software, was not with NT 4.0, and _certainly_ not today. Even if it were, you wouldnt have anywhere to apply it. MS owns their products, they are the sole proprietor, and they change it at their whim. Your patches are cool beans when the whole OS is a surveilance station.

Edit: Read your other link. I admire the faith of someone being able to go a whole page without a single argument. Everything can for the case of argument be shifted against the position of the writer. And it would make just as much sense. Glorious ending "But if GPL continues down its current path, will it be around in 10 years?"

Written in 2007. 2017, year of the unsubstantiated blogger.

 

[shaddim]

Funny how the Creative commons doesnt like its own non-commercial license.

Well, it was not Lessig, it was this group (with FSF influence) after Lessig.

EDIT: this is the required read by Mako hill https://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html

Glorious ending "But if GPL continues down its current path, will it be around in 10 years?"

The argument is here, the GPL losses mindshares since 2007, permissive licensing won, the GPLv3 fragmented the landscape, as prophesized also by the kernel people. (Disclaimer, I'm not happy about the downfall of the copyleft ecosystem...this could have been prevented in 2007 with some pragmatism of the FSF/RMS)

 

[Letalis Sonus]

Things can _not_ be fully proprietary, if they are open in any sense.

Of course they can. Create something, publish everything, don't chose any license, EULA or what have you - things default to basic copyright law, you remain the owner of everything and don't grant implied rights to anybody. Boom, fully open and yet fully proprietary.

"Proprietary" is a term that relates to ownership, it does not cover whether something is open or closed in any sense - that's more of a common assumption because proprietary stuff often is closed.

 

[WizardStan]

They are not in any way shape or form trying to claim that term for themselves

Really? From the name "Open Source Hardware Association" I would suspect that they are an association that brands itself exclusively on the term "open source hardware", and their about and history pages seem to agree, but if you know otherwise feel free to correct me.
By the way, did you know the term "open hardware" is trademarked? From 1997 by Bruce Perens, and just kind of carried on through the various organizations that have evolved from his original certification. So if they aren't trying to claim a term exclusively, why trademark it?
edit: to be clear, that was a rhetorical question. I know there's a lot of reasons to trademark something. It was intended to make you question your original assertion that they are NOT trying to claim the term despite the evidence that they are.

Predating btw, the term open hardware.

Yes, that was kind of exactly the point, that we've had "open hardware" as basically everyone understood it for a very long time; even had a certification program that defined open hardware as hardware that came with documentation and the right to modify. There wasn't originally any requirement of redistribution rights. The earliest mention I can find of that particular definition, equating "open hardware" with what we would refer to as "free software" is a wired article from 2010.

 

[comradekingu]

WizStan:
I fail to see why one more organization doing open hardware means they are gunning for exclusivity.
A trademark is useless if you don't defend it. So Bruce Perens allows this, but somehow OSHWA is now the sole authority?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware#History is the lowdown on how things have progressed.

Noteworthy:

97 Bruce Perens launches Open hardware certification program

David Freeman announces Open Hardware Specification Project (OHSpec)

99 Sepehr Kiani, Ryan Vallance and Samir Nayfeh Open Design Foundation (ODF) to develop open design definition

07 Patrick McNamara Open Hardware Foundation (OHF)

Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Corporation from 82 - TAPR open Hardware license

10 Open Hardware definition - many actors

11 Cern - CERN OHL open hardware license

Bruce Perense abandons OSHW definition and the concerted efforts of those involved with it.

12 FSF Respect Your Freedom RYF

Perens has open and closed his openhardware.org site many times.

Right now its the ngix default landing page.

"Openhardware.org, led by Bruce Perens, promotes and identifies practices that meet all the combined requirements of the Open Source Hardware Definition, the Open Source Definition, and the Four Freedoms of the Free Software Foundation"

While Perens uses Open Source to mean 4 freedoms, i wonder how he thought making an organization with ESR for a word that states only one was a good idea.
What the world needed, and still needs, is a better word for the same thing, not something you can imply to mean the same thing. Free software is as a word in English, lacking, but the concept is spot on.

Perens leaves the OSI shortly thereafter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Perens#Open_Source_Definition_and_The_Open_Source_Initiative
Is an interesting read.

He seems unable to articulate his good ideas with a similarly good choice of words.

I don't know what the open hardware definition is, but any original claims to "open hardware" seem lost.
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition uses the term "Free Cultural Works"
FSF uses RYF, which i imagine to be a Free Cultural Work thing.
Wikipedia called it the "Open design" movement.
------------
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proprietary

How do you think things end up in the public domain? Even if it didn't, copyright law has lots of provisions for use by others, like fair use parody.

If you relate it to "license", as was the original argument, a nondescript license providing default copyright, in most countries (not all), is not what publishing without one means.

-----------
Shaddim: I have a feeling you dont' read the things you link to. And when you do, you don't understand them. What you linked to this time clearly refutes you claim.
Again, its not important what that claim is, its the ugly notion of how much, or little, of an effort you put into your agenda.
You do not understand law, or English. The FSF can't be "pragmatic" because then the foundation of their work would be irrelevant, and we would in effect have less protection for the software we use.

For you to use the word pragmatic, is ironic. Suggested reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

 

[shaddim]

Shaddim: I have a feeling you dont' read the things you link to. And when you do, you don't understand them.

I think you run out of arguments
[doublepost=1481997355,1481997024][/doublepost]

Of course they can. Create something, publish everything, don't chose any license, EULA or what have you - things default to basic copyright law, you remain the owner of everything and don't grant implied rights to anybody. Boom, fully open and yet fully proprietary.

"Proprietary" is a term that relates to ownership, it does not cover whether something is open or closed in any sense - that's more of a common assumption because proprietary stuff often is closed.

indeed. an example is DONKEY.BAS by Bill Gates, distributed as source code. (I think it was ported for the Pandora)

More examples are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_video_games_with_available_source_code

You do not understand law, or English. The FSF can't be "pragmatic" because then the foundation of their work would be irrelevant, and we would in effect have less protection for the software we use.

For you to use the word pragmatic, is ironic. Suggested reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

Maybe the FSF under RMS can't inherently be pragmatic, but for instance the FSFE can be pragmatic.
On the other hand, RMS has shown sometimes suprises like the OGG vorbis switch from GPL to BSD .

My point is, if the GPLv2 to GPLv3 switch would have been handled more realistic and diplomatic (if you like these words better), not alienating the linux kernel, we could still have an strong copyleft system. And a strong copyleft ecosystem we need to be effective in user protection. A system or license no one uses but perfect defending user freedom is also a failure. And here the GPLv3 was a failure, where the GPLv2 was an success, adoption and acceptance.

I don't know what the open hardware definition is, but any original claims to "open hardware" seem lost.

http://web.archive.org/web/19981212031618/http://www.openhardware.org/

as in anything but the open hardware we have had for ages.
Predating btw, the term open hardware. The reason we have it, and why a sentiment like this, is because of the hacker ethos. No more closely does that align with anything but user freedom. Which is why free software, if a bit of a duality in its English meaning, is a defined term that makes sense.

At least according to FSF's guru it has nothing to do with hacker ethos or Free software: RMS 1999 "I see no social imperative for free hardware designs like the imperative for free software."

 

[WizardStan]

I fail to see why one more organization doing open hardware means they are gunning for exclusivity.

Ok, I will step back because that was entirely irrelevant to the point and I refuse to get caught up in a debate over semantics here. It doesn't matter at all whether they are intentionally going for exclusivity or not, the fact is that they have written up their definition and currently stand as one of, if not the, leading authority on the matter, to the degree that Sulu has insisted that their word is law and any deviation is intrinsically wrong. To answer the question you asked, as I originally had, Sulu wants you to present some other authority, equal in strength and devotion as OSHWA, that defines "open hardware" differently. Full stop there. Ignore everything else I said after that point, it was tangential and not directed at anything specific you had said; in fact it was more or less just a rephrasing of what you had already said with a little of my own emphasis.
In other words, we are on the same side in this debate and I don't understand why you're attacking the irrelevant details. At least when I'm being a pedantic ass the thing I'm arguing against has the potential to change the meaning of the argument.

 

[FaeMinx]

Addiction. .. It takes many forms.

Anyone here addicted to thinking?

Oh you're not addicted?

Well can you stop anytime you choose? Really?
And how long does that last before you're doing it again?

Oh it's a 'healthy' amount of thinking you're doing... is that so? is that SO?

Yes I've heard that justification before... It's intervention time!

 

[comradekingu]

I just didnt understand all of your argument, as it had some, to me, inconsequential and erronous parts. So we are clear.

Yes, the TAPR is a open hardware license, the oldest one, backed by a organization from 82. Cern isnt a small-fry either…

The problem about open hardware isn't that someone can claim hardhandedly what it is, far from it, and to the contrary, the problem with open hardware is that nobody can do that.

What sulu feels about the matter is irrelevant. I feel i just entertain the idea that it matters by getting baited into how flawed it is.

Claiming I have to come up with evidence to the contrary,to a claim that, in a history of many, where quite a few still exist, one more recent initiative, using the exact same word, to be the decider of its use, manages to be both misguided, wrong and arrogant.

When stating something, the burden of proof is on the one claiming it to come up with evidence in its support.
Assumption is a poor excuse for research, it does not warrant forming a strong opinion to begin with.

I think the root cause here is that some people really like the word "open" and "open source", but dislike how i use it for what it is worth, rather than its implied meaning.

And the reason it isnt so fruitful, is because we are left with some rather moronic stances, defended by running away from them.

Here is a summary, semi-chronological with the interesting bits, and some value added to see where I am coming from:

To begin with open source, you can have that and be non-commercial.

Non-commercial licenses being defunct, not-popular, etc, does not invalidate this claim. That is the point, open source can suck. There is no guarantee it doesn't suck almost as much as closed source. Free software has this guarantee, but you wont get it with hardware.

>But my ad populace arguments, and feels, everyone is so un-pragmatic

Applying software terms to hardware isn't anything more than a social discipline, because patent law applies, which is why you cant directly use regular licenses, since they deal in copyright.

> But I do it anyway, and that is the way it is

Some hardware licenses like TAPR work just fine, but you need patents, making it non-functional.
Everything else is like hacker software pre 1974.

>But defunct, and I picked my special governing body, the OSI, and open source, it was always about open source, free software is irrelevant, they all want you to believe in their freedom,
but you should totally take my definition of open hardware at face value, based on my misguided idea of open software, from only one source, because pragmatic.
Everything after 1974 stole the movement that was there before then. They even stole Free software as a term.

FSF is not the only free software foundation, and OSI open source is free software.
Exact same hackers, exact same ideas. New laws, better ideas.
Using the term Free software to mean free as in beer, is not a software specific thing. You are thinking of freeware. The distinction between who does freeware is also not the decider in what freeware is. It covers both camps of freeware users, and has nothing to do with free software licenses.

>But if it wasnt that free software came along for a reason, then it was that open source came along for a better one, but the FSF split the hacker movement, right around the same time… And then they split copyleft software with GPLv3, GPLv2 only before GPLv3 came out means rejecting what the GPLv3 is. Just look at these supporting arguments from before open source, and to the contrary of what, what?
I still refuse to see any argument that open source only provides open source, while being perfectly able to contest the point that free software is a good term.

Class act revisionism. The Pyra license is copyleft sans the NC clause, while that does not make it copyleft, or free, it is still qualifies for open. And open hardware in a hardware sense can be non-commercial. The point that free software was a good term was never made, it is a good thing, and a defined one at that.

>But my ad populace arguments this time too, and feels again, everyone is so un-pragmatic. I still have my favourite governing body, and this time i'm also saying that it is the only decider in matters open, while claiming the FSF tries to do that too, something i disagree with, damnit.

Cern, TAPR, and others exist, and predate OSHWA, you will even find non-commercial open hardware licenses. Even if they didnt, the link between a governing body doing something in the name of open, that is aligned to the ideas of free software, does not necessitate the link, it is a correlation. Because words, language, and meaning.

>That doesn't matter because you cant say they are deciders when I have picked who I want to decide.
Also my ad populace because defunct and doesn't work. Nobody subscribes to that, and the ones that do are small, or decide against it. Nobody would use open source against free software ideas.

I am not, you cant decide if there is no unity or definition to the term, that is the point.
Also, If you couldn't shoot yourself in the Free software foot by being open source to the point of non-commercial and then retracting it, maybe nobody would do it…
They retract it because sometimes open source isn't free software, and if what you want to do is free software…
Open source is also historically a word meant to de-emphasise the ideas of free software. It is also used as "opencore" or in other such ways by companies that never want to be free software.
The idea is free software works just fine if it is strong copyleft. And gplv3 works best. This i support by companies using gplv2 when they have to, and closing everything they can, or doing BSD style licenses.
With those having the provision to go closed, and doing it in major fashion. Also because they lose out to projects people care more for. This is because people care for their work, and don't want to see it be taken away.
Some people are really on-board with a license being as little as possible, seeing restrictions as unnecessary, or hampering freedom. Yes, that is a point to make, but it is a tautological one, and deals with license freedom, not user freedom.

>Only if you can do my research

Here you go.

-----------

And that pretty much covers it. Be mad at law, your particular historical event, or ED for not having all the time in the world to deal with licensing. The FSF being arrogant is not a good reason to make a new word, it is a reason to call the FSF out on it.

Disagreeing with having a thread about licenses, is not a good reason to shitpost about it. Thats how you get, more of that, with less of the actual content.

In the name of pragmatism, please provide better ideas for actual licenses to use if you want to object, and support them with arguments based in law, rather than dogma.

 

[WizardStan]

Oh it's a 'healthy' amount of thinking you're doing... is that so? is that SO?

Oh hell no. It's literally going to kill me one day. I've accepted my fate.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

How do you think things end up in the public domain?

Public domain by itself is a questionable idea that is not being covered by several countries' law in the intentional sense, that's why licenses like the WTFPL exist. You can't simply drop ownership of your intellectual property, because several countries don't allow that at all, you can only lose them through obsoletion - which may take a whole lifespan or may even be bound to your death. In countries like France and Germany, you'll remain the author of your own stuff, no matter how eagerly you'd like to drop this privilege entirely.

And, last but not least, to counter one dictionary with another: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/proprietary

 

[EvilDragon]

I should create my own license. One that has "do what you want with it, especially cool things, but don't rip us off" as basic idea.

 

[sm0kew0n]

Yeah write one, then we can discuss it!

 

[canseco]

The authors decided what license to use, i don't understand why it's so hard to deal with it.

 

[erico]

I should create my own license. One that has "do what you want with it, especially cool things, but don't rip us off" as basic idea.

But under which license are you going to create you own license?

 

[Trezker]

Here's a starting point for you http://www.wtfpl.net/

 

[Swordfish II]

I hate this thread. Please stop talking licenses, none of you are actually going to run into a use case issue where it will matter