| |||||||||||
GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation)GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation)Posted Mar 12, 2008 15:50 UTC (Wed) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)In reply to: GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation) by wookey Parent article: GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation)
I think that you are confused about free hardware. Hardware is free by default (think X license), patents excepted. There is no need for free hardware projects to make hardware free. The free hardware projects are about adding the equivalent of copyleft (think GPL) to hardware which is an entirely different argument than arguing over free. If you have purchased a piece of hardware, you are typically free to do what you want with it (as long as you don't do things to other property you don't own with it), you do not have this freedom with software unless it is free software. So, again please do not let the free hardware projects influence you to think that your hardware that you own ins't free (except for firmware)! but still nearly all of my hardware is non-free.Could you please give me one example of non-free hardware? Maybe we need a Stallman for hardware...We don't exactly because hardware is already free!
(Log in to post comments)
GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation) Posted Mar 12, 2008 16:56 UTC (Wed) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link] It's free for *now*. Just wait until home fabbers/replicators become affordable. *Then* you'll see copyright laws applied to hardware. Really, hardware is no different than the compiled machine code of software. It's the result of converting a design into the final result, therefore the final result, the hardware, is *obviously* a derived work of the design. Just wait. :)
GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation) Posted Mar 12, 2008 20:31 UTC (Wed) by karim (subscriber, #114) [Link] "If you have purchased a piece of hardware, you are typically free to do what you want with it" Great, so please give me the steps required to fix a buggy video chip or a race condition in my CPU. "Could you please give me one example of non-free hardware?" Sure, visit dell.com, hp.com, ibm.com or any other such site. Chances are you're only going to be able to purchase hardware made from proprietary components. You are equally free to modify these systems as you are of modifying proprietary binaries. In fact, the latter is likely much easier than the former. Karim Yaghmour Founder and CEO Kryptiva inc.
GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation) Posted Mar 12, 2008 20:48 UTC (Wed) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] You still refuse to differentiate between free and capable, one is a legal matter, the other is a physical matter. ...Chances are you're only going to be able to purchase hardware made from proprietary components. You are equally free to modify these systems as you are of modifying proprietary binaries. In fact, the latter is likely much easier than the former.You are using the term free when you mean capable. Perhaps I am not capable of modifying the hardware, but if I try and if I fail or succed, I will not go to jail or face legal penalties for it. If I try to modify the software and fail or succeed because it is easy, I am likely to face criminal prosecution, fines and jail. You expressed earlier that you think that I am splitting hairs on this terminology, but it is important to understand what you/I mean when we talk about things. Free and capable are not the same, I am clearly illustrating two different concepts and you continually give examples of one when you mean the other. You may choose to conclude that both have the same effect for you, but this does not make them the same. Understanding the difference may keep someone out of jail someday.
GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation) Posted Mar 13, 2008 0:51 UTC (Thu) by karim (subscriber, #114) [Link]
"You still refuse to differentiate between free and capable, one is a legal matter, the other
is a physical matter."
So therefore the argument is that it's perfectly coherent to call hardware "free" even though
I am incapable of doing with it what I want? Sorry, maybe I'm confused but for me capability
is a precondition to freedom. If I lack the capability to grow wings, it's really of little
use that I be free to do so. The whole point of free software is user empowerment. Here's from
the FSF:
<quote>
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and
improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the
software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1).
Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that
the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for
this.
</quote>
Notice that freedom 1 entitles me to "study" and "adapt". How I can "study" and "adapt" the
chips running inside my computer right now evades me. Here's chipforge's take on this whole
thing:
http://www.chipforge.org/policy/future_oss.html
<quote>
"Without Open Source Hardware, Open Source Software can't survive!"
</quote>
With regards to legality then bare in mind that at the time the free software movement was
started by Richard, the legal landscape was very different in the US. In fact, those laws that
will get have you put in prison today for reverse-engineer stuff did not exist then, and, in
fact, do not exist in most countries, except the US. Hence, free software advocates worldwide
do not champion free software out of fear. Then do so because of the empowerment free software
gives them. And that's what drives me personally. There is something about knowing that I can
hack my software to death that is very rewarding, and so to is the knowledge that the software
I use is a living fabric that is continuously being sown by the intellect and generosity of
people I can talk back to and have a human connection with -- a far cry from proprietary
software which is like those cold sandwiches you buy from vending machines here and there, you
buy them because you're hungry not because they inspire you.
My prerogatives, and those of other software developers and free software developers, though,
have no bearing on users' expectation: software the just works.
Karim Yaghmour
Founder and CEO
Kryptiva inc.
GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation) Posted Mar 16, 2008 6:33 UTC (Sun) by JohnNilsson (subscriber, #41242) [Link] I get the impression that you booth should agree on what kind of freedom you are referring to, negative (freedom from) or positive (freedom to)?
GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation) Posted Mar 19, 2008 4:17 UTC (Wed) by kevinbsmith (subscriber, #4778) [Link] You might not have faced jail time, but you were certainly not free to redistribute modified copies of most software. You would be punished. Also, a much-overlooked aspect of free software, and one which is directly relevant to the "freedom vs. capability" question, is that free software gives you the right to pay someone else to do the work. Someone who has capabilities that you do not.
GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation) Posted Mar 15, 2008 15:21 UTC (Sat) by job (guest, #670) [Link] Gamers and overclockers "fix" the video cards all the time, by modifying the clock signal or doing other things in hardware. Audiophiles too. And don't get me started on car enthusiasts...
GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation) Posted Mar 16, 2008 6:31 UTC (Sun) by JohnNilsson (subscriber, #41242) [Link] Radio transmitters, such as wireless network adapters, are generally not legal to tamper with. Hardware implementing a DRM-scheme are not legal to modify to circumvent the DRM part. (Or rather the tampering is legal but certain actions in association to it would be prohibited. Removing DRM as a service would be illegal f.ex.)
|
|||||||||||