Power, Memory and Schematics

[sulu]

The OSHWA only defines Open Source Hardware.

I don't care if you want to call it "Open Source Hardware", "Open Hardware", "Free Hardware" or whatever. It all basically means the same: Applying the freedoms that are well established for FLOSS to hardware projects. What all those HW-related terms have in common is, that in every relevant definition you'll find that it includes the openness/freedom of selling the source/schematics.

The definition's origin lies with the OSI and hence the whole term is heavily based on the OSI's own definition and understanding of Open Source (they do not define "Open" by itself!) - "Source" really shouldn't fall off the table. It is not related to calling anything "open hardware".

And both are based on Debian's Social Contract, which explicitly states in point 1 of its DFSG that "Free Distribution" includes the selling of software falling under the DFSG. That got carried over via the OSI to the OSHWA.
I also don't see why you say "source" shouldn't fall off the table. Of course it shouldn't. But why do you think I'd let that happen? The Pyra license we're talking about is about the design schematics, which is the source of the Pyra as a hardware project.

You're basically expressing that you're fully standing behind the OSI in the whole OSI vs FSF controversy.

No, I'm not. Both organisation's POVs have their strengths and weaknesses.
I'm not thinking in boxes, I just want to make sure we're using proper terms here, so that not everybody comes up with his own "definition" of what "openness" is, within the well established scope of FLOSS(&H).

 

[comradekingu]

Whatever your variation over the theme "basically" is, it invalidates your claim.

To specify;
For anything open, it can be non-commercial. While non-commercial software isn't hugely relevant in terms of being widespread, it is relevant to how it is _not_ free software.
And thus, open from how it is not the same as free, is relevant. Because one guarantees your freedoms, and the other one implies it.

Ripping out "Free software" and replacing it with "Open Source" is how "being based on DFSG" is crucially different to what DFSG is.

 

[sulu]

Whatever your variation over the theme "basically" is, it invalidates your claim.

No.
You're just making up your own definition of words again, just like you did with the word "open", that is clearly defined within the context of FLOSS licenses.

For anything open, it can be non-commercial.

Yes, but being non-commercial MUST NOT (RFC 2119) be a requirement for being open.
Again: Every relevant FLOSS license will tell you that.

While non-commercial software isn't hugely relevant in terms of being widespread, it is relevant to how it is _not_ free software.
And thus, open from how it is not the same as free, is relevant. Because one guarantees your freedoms, and the other one implies it.

While I agree with every single line, I don't see how you make a causal connection between the two.
Of course FS != NC, and FS != OS, but there is no causality that allows for NC == OS.
1 != 2 and is 1 != 3. But that doesn't make 2 == 3.

Ripping out "Free software" and replacing it with "Open Source" is how "being based on DFSG" is crucially different to what DFSG is.

I have no clue how you came up with that, but when I said that the OSD is based on the DFSG it was, because the former is a derivative of the latter. That has nothing to do with "ripping out" something out of anything.

 

[comradekingu]

Too bad open does not necessitate FLOSS licenses. Deal with the argument instead.

Open goes both ways. Non-commercial or Free. Non-commercial can be proprietary or open, but it can not be Free. Thus, Open != Free.

FLOSS licenses dictate FLOSS software. Open licenses are open to terms which would invalidate terms of it being Free Software.

Open Source doesn't always have to be non-commercial for my argument to string together. That _is_ my argument, it allows for a junction, where one way is NC, and the other is Free.

That is how the OSI came up with the OSD, which is a subversion of how the DFSG is in turn based on Free Software.
Seem to skip that part, and continue to only see open source in the image you deem worthy.

The irony of which, is you uphold Free Software too a tee, through not-invented-here revisionism.

 

[sulu]

Open goes both ways. Non-commercial or Free.

If "Open" could go "Non-commercial", then this interpretation would be laid down in some publicly accessible document that was approved by a lawyer, just as "Open" can go "Free" is laid down in a number of FLOSS licenses.
You, being a certifier, should know that "Open" == "Non-commercial" document, and should also be able to provide a reference to it. Yet, you fail or refuse to provide that reference and keep claiming instead that your unfunded interpretation of "Open" == "Non-commercial" is valid.

Just cite your sources!

 

[error]

I'd also like to remind everyone that this horrible, terrible non-open license applies only to the schematic document. You can do anything you want with the hardware, including cloning, modifying, and/or selling it - and you have the full documentation available for you to do so. Sounds pretty open to me.

 

[shaddim]

DFSG is in turn based on Free Software.
.

DFSG is NOT based on RMS' Free Software definition but was independently developed.
https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1129863&cid=26875815

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

 

[sulu]

I'd also like to remind everyone that this horrible, terrible non-open license applies only to the schematic document. You can do anything you want with the hardware, including cloning, modifying, and/or selling it - and you have the full documentation available for you to do so. Sounds pretty open to me.

Just in case you're implying that, I never said and don't think that the license applied to the Pyra schematics is horrible or terrible or wrong or whatever. I'm just saying it is not open according to any definition I know of that might apply here.
What you can do with the physical hardware created by using these schematics has nothing to do with the schematic's license.

 

[error]

If your argument is that it's not open hardware, then the license of the hardware seems like what you should be concerned with. You have virtually every right you could possibly want, except for the right to charge users for a freely available document.
[doublepost=1482268961,1482268738][/doublepost]I haven't looked at the document, but maybe it could start with "This document is available free of charge at <url>! If you paid money for this, you should ask for a refund." Then you could lift NC and still protect users from being swindled.

 

[sulu]

If your argument is that it's not open hardware, then the license of the hardware seems like what you should be concerned with. You have virtually every right you could possibly want, except for the right to charge users for a freely available document

You don't need a license for the physical hardware (in this case). You buy it and then it's yours and you can do with it whatever you want.
You only need licenses for things you don't own. You can download the schematics but they are not yours. The schematics are a "Werk" (here: "work") according to Gerrman "Urheberrecht" (copyright law) and still belong to GDC (Urheberrecht is non-transferable btw). GDC is granting you a license to do a lot of things with their schematics - excluding the selling of the schematics.

 

[error]

You buy it and then it's yours and you can do with it whatever you want.

I'm sure if I made an exact copy of my iPhone and started selling it, Apple's lawyers would be after me in minutes. No; most companies sell proprietary, patented, closed hardware. This is the opposite of that (i.e., open).

 

[sulu]

I'm sure if I made an exact copy of my iPhone and started selling it, Apple's lawyers would be after me in minutes. No; most companies sell proprietary, patented, closed hardware.

This is why I said "in this case" in my last post, because this is by far not true for all products.
And this is why earlier in this thread I expressed my opinion, that the schematics of your copyPhone, created by reverse-engineering of an iPhone, would have to be considered a derivative work of the iPhone schematics. Since you don't have a license for the original iPhone schematics that allows you to create and sell derivatives you're not allowed to sell your copyPhone.

 

[error]

Since you don't have a license for the original iPhone schematics that allows you to create and sell derivatives you're not allowed to sell your copyPhone.

No, the license on the schematics concerns the schematic. The license of the design of the product is something else. Even if you had a fully licensed schematic, you wouldn't be licensed to make iPhones. Likewise, even though the license of the Pyra schematic is non-commercial, the license of the design itself is not so restricted.

 

[sulu]

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.

 

[elvissteinjr]

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":

[...]
h
:
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.

 

[sulu]

Talking about dictionaries, here's a dictionary definition of "open":

From the very same dictionary:

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.

 

[shaddim]

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.

 

[sulu]

Well, if we follow common law interpretation schematics themselves are not copyrightable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behringer#Legal_cases )

Only if you are a US citizen not habitually residing in the EU.
Well, that's at least my take on it, if I understand [1] correctly. I must admit though, that I got quite lost in paragraph 14 of the CDPA excerpt.

[1] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/1999/252.html

 

[comradekingu]

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.
https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1129863&cid=26875815

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.

 

[sulu]

The right of distribution isn't the same as ownership. Can you sell _your_ kids?

So you're saying, my kids are my property?
Sorry if this is rude, but after reading this I didn't even bother to read the rest.