Power, Memory and Schematics

True! Sorry for being vague. You need licenses for all the documents that are necessary to re-create a product. These licenses need to include the rights to create and sell your copied product in the first place. Otherwise you can't sell your copyPhone. This is independent of the question whether or under which circumstances you are allowed to re-distribute the documents.

When it comes to the Pyra schematics it's all about the licenses about the redistribution of the documents. This is a totally different topic than your copyPhone. If you want to stick to it, we should forget about the physical product. Instead we should talk about the iPhone's schematics and design files and the licenses to them that Apple might have granted you.
If "Open" could go "Non-commercial", then this interpretation would be laid down in some publicly accessible document that was approved by a lawyer
My, I'll better check if all my dictionaries are lawyer approved now.

Talking about dictionaries, here's a dictionary definition of "open":
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open said:
not proprietary
available to third party developers <open source code>

The Pyra is still "available to third party developers" hardware, or open hardware. I'm still under the impression that some organization, no matter how big or widely accepted shouldn't have something like a trademark on the word open coupled with their definition of open.

But uh, I'm actually more impressed how this is still going. I've been sitting here for a few pages and even though you are still discussing things, I don't see you getting anywhere.
Talking about dictionaries, here's a dictionary definition of "open":
From the very same dictionary:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proprietary said:
1 : one that possesses, owns, or holds exclusive right to something;
Now, I think we all agree, that according to the license, the Pyra dev team holds the exclusive right of selling the schematics - even though they are not exercising this right.
So the Pyra schematics are released under a proprietary == "non-open" license.
From the very same dictionary:
Now, I think we all agree, that according to the license, the Pyra dev team holds the exclusive right of selling the schematics - even though they are not exercising this right.
So the Pyra schematics are released under a proprietary == "non-open" license.

Well, if we follow common law interpretation schematics themselves are not copyrightable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behringer#Legal_cases ) and the Pyra team has no exclusive right anymore on selling the schematics due to missing copyright protection. They have the exclusive right on selling the documentation of the schematics, the PDF, which is quite worthless.
From the very same dictionary:
Now, I think we all agree, that according to the license, the Pyra dev team holds the exclusive right of selling the schematics - even though they are not exercising this right.
So the Pyra schematics are released under a proprietary == "non-open" license.

The license is open, because it licenses the schematics to be in the open, for non-commercial purposes.
Same as any non-commercial open license, be it hardware or software.

You would have to conclusively prove that the other definition of open _isn't_ valid for your claim to make sense.

DFSG is NOT based on RMS' Free Software definition but was independently developed.

RMS like to claim everything in FOSS as his achievements which is unsubstantiated in many cases.

I don't see why you would invoke RMS here, nor why your claim, for lack of evidence, is anything but ironic.

So I didn't actually say it was RMS free software, i said free software, there is no difference there, as in the term everyone subscribes to.
You can apply it to software released earlier than the term, but important to my argument, the term stems from way before the DFSG was made.
I have looked, but have yet to find another definition to contest this.
As there are many definitions of free software, we
include the guidelines we use to determine if software is "free" below.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/1997/msg00017.html What do you think this means?

Out of "many" definitions, can one entertain the idea that none of the Debian devs directly involved weren't familiar with at least the FSF and Berkeley definition? GPL and BSD are cited right there in the text.
It would by some miracle be a great coincidence that they happened to bed copied one after the other, without prior knowledge.

The evidence to the contrary, is that 12 years later, the guy who ripped out "free software" from the DFSG to form the OSI definition, somehow didn't know?

Debian, or Debian GNU/Linux, which it was called at the time of making the DFSG, was started with funds sponsored by the GNU project. https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/project-history/ch-detailed.en.html Say what you will about a certain RMS, but he _does_ take the opportunity to explain what free software is…

I furthermore don't understand what other definition you could derive from those licenses, other than what the free software community is built on.
Were it a mere coincidence that there should be no direct link, it is not one that both arrive at the same conclusion. There is a prior art to how the foundations were laid, and how that came to be. To sell it anything short of that, lacks that finesse.

Btw, "Open Source" as a term predates the OSI, and according to OSI itself, is meant as a term to describe the superiority of an open development process. https://opensource.org/history
Employing a modicum of critical analysis, it seems at the time at least this much was true.

I don't see how for example non-commercial licenses with public and modifiable source code, in the open if you will, aren't engaging in an open development process.

So you have Free software, many free software licenses, a free software community, Netscape freeing up their code. And all of a sudden the term open source comes along to mimic everything but the philosophy of free software, while employing it wholesale. And then an organization is set up to that purpose. Yet free software is to blame for a subsequent splitting of focus. That doesn't add up.

Edit: I tried to fact check the slashdot post.

It says the four freedoms were published in a Bulletin, that this was unknown, and that they were published again much later on the FSF website.
However much later you want to call it, they were there atleast 26th of january 1998 https://web.archive.org/web/19980126185518/https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
But they were only three. With the first one being not a level, but a written word "run" above.

Expressly stating the non-link between for profit software and Free software. Also with an explanation to the different terms https://web.archive.org/web/19980126190036/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html
Note that the "levels" were later removed, "as you need all of them" and "semi-free" fell out of fashion. I imagine for much the same reason 3/4 free and 4/5 copyleft was inconclusive here.

So if three freedoms were defined in 86, and then at best re-invented under the leadership of a person in July 1997 with the DFSG. Why does that give the same person the right to employ them to a term someone else came up with, meaning much less, open source. To expressly try to remove the ethical implications of what is an ethical predating movement by the same name. Later berating the ethical consequences to the detriment of that aim, but continuing to use the term open source.

He reaches out to RMS to get him to read the DFSG document, someone who made both the initial GPL license and the definition of Free software. And the slashdot post says:

"Much later, FSF published its statement of the Four Freedoms on its web site as an alternative to the Open Source Definition."

An alternative definition of software to the already defined Free software, defined no less by the same guy overseeing the DFSG, which is the Debian Gnu/Linux Free Software Guidelines.

It just strikes me as very disingenuous. It is shameful and without warrant to rip free software out of that. And stupid for the same reason free is ambiguous in English, it is unspecific.

Free software, also has predating use, but not specifically so (?) and certainly not a term that would translate in a similar fashion to other languages.

This makes libre software, to use the same term in a more modern non-broken form of English, between 86 and 97, undoubtedly Free Software. So you have to employ a great amount of double-think to both remove meaning by downplaying it, and then adding an ambiguity that claims to be the same.

Free software is not only potentially meaningful, as in implying freedoms, of which are defined. It is also a figure of speech by now.

"open source" specifically means that the source is open. It doesn't depend on the intention of how you say it, context.
And to put it in context, it has no historical presence in the field it operates, for how it tries to do it, other than meaning "open development". All it does as a figure of speech, is to imply.

Imply that making OSI open source a definition without "free sofware" in it, wasn't anything but a politicized word to disagree with someones politics. To strip a maybe meaningful term, off all its power. If only the word had been better, it could be seen an effort that falls to its own unreasonable nature.
It is not about users and their freedom, it is about hiding it so you can sell it to businesses.

The claim that open hardware necessitate OSI open source, which is from 98, is completely bogus.
Because Open Hardware stems from at-least 97 https://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/1997/msg00026.html again, same guy.

And just to be clear:

"Details of on-board firmware and the hardware implementation need not be disclosed except when necessary to make it possible to program a driver for the device."

And it is supported by, the FSF.
Said person later leaves the efforts officially, having made a few attempts at involvement through the years. He also left the OSI.

I think what the world needs is copyleft hardware, before someone makes a term that foregoes any of the prior freedoms.

I don't know if copyleft is by necessity tied to copyright, which would make it in some ways unsuitable for copyright, but maybe not, because it seems at least copyleft it is in the software sense (0-4), on hardware means you cant require non-commercialization anyhow.

I like to make the case for any of the freedoms i get. If it is all 5, i don't want to sell short the protections I have been given by saying free software, which is 4 to 5.
Open source I understand to be 2 out of 5, as used in the OSI to specifically highlight these 2 over the others, with the original meaning being broad enough to also include non-compliance with 0, 2 and 5.

I want 5, copyleft. Those are the 5 i consider essential.

Edit2: Here are terms of weak/strong and partial/full https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Strong_and_weak_copyleft

So always strong, except for instances where weak makes more sense. And full unless one has inherited something that isn't. To ability would mean you have to make efforts to these ends.
Last edited: