LWN: Comments on "How not to recognize free hardware"

Many open android tablet devices

martinfick — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 01:21:27 +0000

I believe I may have overstated the openness of these devices. What seemed to me at first as evidence of the code being available for them (alternate ROMs), was really just evidence of the devices not being locked down. However, it turns out that for some (most?), the source is not actually available. It is a strange situation, the manufacturers seem to still be releasing new ROMs with bugfixes, but they are not releasing the code. What a shame, I cannot see what they gain from this. Many on these forums would enhance the code and make the devices more valuable if they did.

Oppressive Adobe Flash EULA

madhatter — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:48:08 +0000

You may well be right. I suppose I'm, oddly, minded to prefer software with a license that I don't have to examine with Strunk and White, and the 2010 White Book, to hand, in order to decipher my obligations. I'll stick with the GPL, and other free licences, and enjoy their protection, thanks.

OT: gnome pronunciation

paulj — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:49:02 +0000

Seems you're right, my pronunciation norms are biased by subculture membership. ;) Straw poll elsewhere is overwhelmingly "nome".

You are correct - that's how things are going...

khim — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:06:01 +0000

That is to say, more of the hardware the OS actually cares about is class compliant rather than requiring custom drivers.

Well, the situation is simple: most "hardware" devices nowadays include sizable software components (firmwares for things things like HDD today are bigger then whole Unix systems were 30 years back), so when it's known what the device should do and how it should work they eventually comply to the spec.

But it does not make the suggested mark valuable! In first stage when new wave of the devices are introduced it's pointless because it's sheer insanity to tie release dates for the "hot new stuff" to release dates of kernel and later when majority of the devices are produced by the most famous brand ever called "Noname" there are noone who will care enough to bother to test compliance - but it does not really matter because stuff works out of the box!

But on the whole I can't think of any category where things are less class-based than they were in say 1995, and many where things are more so.

Any category which existed back then is "old news" today - so of course the majority of the devices reached "driver for class" stage. But new categories and subcategories are different. Compare situation with mices (some still require drivers to enable full functionality, but for majority there are not need for driver at all) and multitouch-enabled touchpads.

Free source software

mfedyk — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 08:32:19 +0000

I like this. I'll be saying free source software from now on.

Oppressive Adobe Flash EULA

giraffedata — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 00:51:44 +0000

If I were writing that contract, with the meaning that we both know Adobe intended, I would write "copies," because "you are required to make a back-up copy of the software and your computer data" means you're required to make a single combined copy of the two, which is not normally how people back those things up. It's "you must send bills to all your customers," not "you must send a bill to all your customers." But I know people often say the latter.

Also, the plural includes the singular in the same way the masculine includes the feminine in formal English. For example, "you must send bills to your customers" validly covers a merchant with one customer, if the text doesn't otherwise assert there is only one.

I could add a bunch of words to prevent any interpretation like you're proposing, but it wouldn't be worth complicating the the text since I know no judge will choose an interpretation that makes it impossible to perform.

Contract law varies very little throughout the US and even the whole English common-law world. Local variations are in specific subject matter areas; it's hard to find variation in basic things like construction (what did the parties mean when they said X?). You don't find law school contract textbooks specific to a state, for example.

Oppressive Adobe Flash EULA

madhatter — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 21:27:21 +0000

I can't agree with your reading. One of each would be "you are required to make a back-up copy of the software and your computer data"; the singular has no other use. "Back-up copies of both" implies multiple copies of each.

Your point about contract construction seems much more convincing to me, and very sensible to boot - but it will doubtless vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. An EULA which requires me to do the impossible seems unwise to me, even though local contract law might save me from its insanities.

25 years of making people who agree with you cringe

giraffedata — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 18:19:02 +0000

Silly rules are there for ego stroking.

I don't see how any ego gets stroked by Adobe including a silly rule in its EULA.

But I can see how Adobe would include a restriction even knowing that it would be silly to enforce it 99.9% of the time, because in some scenario (which you haven't thought of, but lawyers are paid to imagine) it could mean a lot of money for Adobe.

I have rented apartments with illegal clauses in the rental agreements. One silly landlord tried to enforce one (cleaning deposit in California), I took her to court, and won.

(for those of you following along, felixfelix is talking about a "nonrefundable cleaning deposit," which is the oxymoronic term some rental agreements use to refer to money you put up in advance to pay for cleaning when you move out, whether the apartment is dirty or not. In California, a renter does not have the power to commit to that).

But silly rules matter to some people on a moral basis, even if the law doesn't stand behind them. Some people believe it is wrong to renege on a deal, even when the government allows and encourages you to do it. If you gave your landlord money knowing that she expected to keep it and wouldn't give you the apartment without it, some would say you have a moral obligation to let her keep it.

The law lets you renege on that deal as an efficient device to eliminate competition (with other renters who might pay that cleaning fee) and create a different distribution of wealth than the free market would.

I know a case where a woman in New York City begged a landlord to rent her an apartment with broken plumbing, because she couldn't afford any normal apartment, lived there for 18 months, then took her entire rent for the whole time back. You can do that in New York, because it's the City's way of preventing apartments with broken plumbing from existing. But I can tell you lots of people would not have the chutzpah.

I also know of several cases of people borrowing money and not paying it back, possibly intending that all along, and the law supported it because the parties agreed to interest higher than 10%. Some would call that theft, and I also know of cases where people repaid everything in spite of the legal privilege not to.

Oppressive Adobe Flash EULA

giraffedata — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 17:49:15 +0000

16.1.3 You are required to take all reasonable measures to avoid and reduce damages, in particular to make back-up copies of the Software and your computer data subject to the provisions of this agreement.
I particularly enjoyed this one, inasmuch as it requires you to make backup copies of the software in accordance with the agreement, when the agreement earlier forbids you from making copies (a copy is OK; copies are not). That might be wrong; it's definitely impossible.

You just aren't parsing it correctly. A backup copy of the Software and a backup copy of your Windows registry constitute two backup copies, i.e. copies of the Software and your computer data. And incidentally, there is a rule of contract construction that says if a clause can be interpreted two ways and one of them is impossible, the other one is the one that applies.

25 years of making people who agree with you cringe

Fats — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:31:51 +0000

I have to admit I sometimes don't follow laws and EULAs to the letter. I sometimes cross the street in a diagonal way. I sometimes use the bike lane on the wrong side of the road for short distances. I sometimes install software without reading the EULA.
Some people will call me a criminal for it.

I still don't have a problem with the EULA. I may be silly in certain places but it is just a showing of the mad world we live in. A world where people sue their microwave manufacturer because they fried their cat and it was not mentioned in the manual that you should not put a pet in the oven.

The EULA only applies to the software itself so if there would ever be a problem with it, like Adobe suing people for their use of the Flash plugin, I can just uninstall the software and be done with it.

That said, I don't defend Adobe's business practices. There is probably one thing worse then getting a bunch of IBM lawyers knocking on your door and that is having a bunch of Adobe lawyers knocking on your door ...
But this fact does not stop me from enjoying movies on youtube etc.

greets,
Staf.

How not to recognize free hardware

martinfick — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:39:18 +0000

Except that most people shopping for devices are shopping online. No barcodes likely available there. :(

How not to recognize free hardware

foom — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:41:36 +0000

> [Headline: "FSF pushes policies that promote non-free hardware" :-)]

Wouldn't be much of a surprise, considering that they've promoted non-free documentation for a long time.

Open Source Hardware, anyone?

zack — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:02:48 +0000

>I wonder if it even worse than that: If not FSF, what other organization might credibly create a certification mark like this, but without the unacceptable bits?

If they really are becoming active again, and if they're smart enough to see the chance, I'd bet a few bucks on OSI (as in Open Source Initiative). If OSI would do that, and actually succeed in becoming fairly popular, that would be very much ironical: "open source" will become a common term for hardware pretty much as (unfortunately) it has become for software.

No matter how much I respect FSF and no matter how much I'm on the "Free Software" side of the free-software-vs-open-source religious war, in this case the irony will be well deserved.

It is a contest?

tialaramex — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:14:02 +0000

Doesn't it feel like this is happening more & more?

I admit I don't have hard figures, and I'm not sure how I'd get them, but my strong feeling is that things have been getting progressively better.

That is to say, more of the hardware the OS actually cares about is class compliant rather than requiring custom drivers.

There are big holdouts. Networking for example, Ethernet cards are hot on compliance with a well documented standard right up until you reach the controller chip, I guess all the standard-friendly people at network peripheral companies work over on the link-layer side of the operation.

But on the whole I can't think of any category where things are less class-based than they were in say 1995, and many where things are more so.

I thought we'd missed a trick twice with USB, firstly sound (but today everything is either USB Audio or HDA on PCI) and then webcams (but the USB video spec didn't die, it was just a long pregnancy and today you can walk into any store and buy webcams you've never heard of that work in Linux)

It is a contest?

khim — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:38:21 +0000

FSF's idea was already DOA, why do you want even crazier and more pointless one?

At least with "Respects Your Freedom" mark you have a clear list of requirements. "Works with 2.6.32+" does not have such a list - because there are no clear-cut rules which can be followed to guarantee inclusion in linux kernel!

This is idea will be workable if and when all devices will use standardized interfaces (a-la USB sticks), but
1. It does not look like it'll happen any time soon and
2. If this will actually happen the mark will be even more pointless: all devices with happily work with Linux at this point.

GPL is hack - that's why it works...

khim — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:01:36 +0000

Most manufacturers simply don't care mouch about openness or closedness, as long as they can use code to speed up development significantly. If they have to release source code then -- what the heck. This part of how the Linux explosion has worked.

Yup. People are irrational. They behave like monkeys.

When you present carrot (high-quality code, free advertisement, etc) first and then show the stick (demand payment in form of freedom) later - they will often accept the bargain because, let's be frank, most manufacturers are not evil and lock-down the devices to simplify their own life, not to rob user of the freedom.

When you present stick first and then your demands look truly onerous (why do you want to decide if I will offer support for Windows or not?) then you'll need much bigger carrot to overcome the first impression.

In a sense FSF campaigns are designed to fail because they assume that people are rational - and in the end most of them end up a failure. Some few of them succeed because someone else presents the same idea in a sane way - but is it really a good way forward? I think "The perfect is the enemy of the good" dogma applies to FSF 9 times out of 10 (if not 10 times out of 10).

The infamous example of this problem is the Nopedia vs the Wikipedia. It took three years to create 24 high-quality articles using experts and thorough per-review process (and some 74 articles were in the works when Nupedia was closed down). Wikipedia got more articles in few days after launch! And in one year it had more very high-quality articles then Nupedia got in three years! Sure, most articles on Wikipedia were (and are) complete rubbish, but... the topics covered by other encyclopedias are great in Wikipedia - and "rubbish" topics cover things which will never be even mentioned in Britannica!

Does it mean experts and per-review are irrelevant? Sure as hell no - but by themselves they are not numerous enough to move "free world encyclopedia" idea forward. And the same is true for the people who care enough about freedom to accept onerous FSF's requirements related to this mark...

How not to recognize free hardware

gerv — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:53:30 +0000

I agree with most of this; but the guidelines are open for discussion:
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Talk:Hardware/Endorsement_cri...

Last week, I made several of the points the editor has now made. Why not jump in and support me?

Gerv

Adobe EULA stupidities

james — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:27:29 +0000

It gets worse.

In order to use Adobe Reader, you have to click-through a box saying "I have read and agree to the EULA".

The EULA is provided as a PDF.

The only way out of that circular dependency is with another PDF reader.

Well, it's only natural...

pauly — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:29:14 +0000

> It's getting better, and it's not thanks to the FSF:
Well, in part it is. Not particularly to the FSF, but rather thanks
to GPL. The ultimate non-free device for me is now the iPhone:
A beautiful device on top of any usability score list, with a
powerful unix-like OS at its heart. But the BSD licence allows
Apple to get every profit from the (originally open) code, at the
same time putting users into a (albeit golden) cage.
The fact that the GPL is very clear about derived work has hugely
helped to push evolution into the right direction.
My impression is: Most manufacturers simply don't care mouch about
openness or closedness, as long as they can use code to speed up
development significantly. If they have to release source code then
-- what the heck. This part of how the Linux explosion has worked.

"Hint, hint"

aggelos — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:10:08 +0000

Well, I mailed Brett Smith about it and just got his reply:

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

On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 20:52 +0200, Aggelos Economopoulos wrote:
> > It is not clear if "a general-purpose facility for installing other
> > programs" includes a facility like APT (where you typically download a
> > default list of packages that are available for installation from a
> > remote site). Would such a facility that, among hundreads of packages,
> > included packages of non-free software meet your criteria if it didn't
> > go out of its way to promote the non-free packages?

If the list of packages that is used on the device as shipped includes
nonfree software, then such a facility would not pass muster under the
criteria, no. We definitely had apt and its package repositories in
mind as one common facility when we wrote that section. If the default
repositories include nonfree software, that's "steer[ing] users towards
installation" of the software."

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

So it seems that your reading is correct after all. I'll ask them to make the wording clearer if possible.

How not to recognize free hardware

nix — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:46:08 +0000

Flanders would probably have pronounced it that way. ("I'm a g-nu.")

Free source software

felixfix — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:41:59 +0000

I have always pissed on both camps by making up my own moniker, "Free Source Software". It's very easy to say and unmistakeable in meaning.

25 years of making people who agree with you cringe

felixfix — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:35:00 +0000

Silly rules are there for ego stroking.

I have rented apartments with illegal clauses in the rental agreements. One silly landlord tried to enforce one (cleaning deposit in California), I took her to court, and won.

The point isn't that the clause was illegal so much as it was unenforceable, and the same applies to silly clauses in EULAs. The only real enforcement the manufacturer has is to not honor a warranty if they can find a reason to show you have abused their product. In practice, the clauses you cite are as unenforceable in every practical aspect as the truly illegal rental clause the landlord tried to enforce on me.

I don't like flash, but I use it without having read the EULA, and I don't care what nonsense they have put in there. There is nothing they can put in the EULA that has any affect on me.

Well, it's only natural...

felixfix — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:28:01 +0000

One of the rules of leading is to look back once in a while to make sure you still have followers. The few who follow this eye-rolling exercise will not be enough to induce ANY manufacturers to also follow.

25 years of making people who agree with you cringe

madhatter — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:09:55 +0000

> I've no problem with the EULA.

2.4 Backup Copy. You may make one backup copy of the Software, provided your backup copy is not installed or used. You may not transfer the rights to a backup copy unless you transfer all rights in the Software as provided under Section 4.

You ever make backups of your system, including the directory where flash is installed? I hope you don't ever keep more than one backup. That would be wrong.

3.1 Adobe Runtime Restrictions. You will not use any Adobe Runtime on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. For the avoidance of doubt, and by example only, you may not use an Adobe Runtime on any [...] tablet and Tablet PC (other than with Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and its successors)

You weren't planning on running flash on Linux on a tablet, were you? That would be wrong.

You agree that the Software will not be shipped, transferred or exported into any country or used in any manner prohibited by the United States Export Administration Act or any other export laws, restrictions or regulations (collectively the Export Laws).

Planning on taking your netbook on holiday? That might be wrong, and it's your responsibility to check whether or not your holiday destination is permitted to you.

16.1.3 You are required to take all reasonable measures to avoid and reduce damages, in particular to make back-up copies of the Software and your computer data subject to the provisions of this agreement.

I particularly enjoyed this one, inasmuch as it requires you to make backup copies of the software in accordance with the agreement, when the agreement earlier forbids you from making copies (a copy is OK; copies are not). That might be wrong; it's definitely impossible.

There are other fairly objectionable terms in there, too. I can understand that people don't read it - it's 210 pages long, and in a whole selection of languages - but I'm vaguely surprised that people rush to defend it.

Many open android tablet devices

martinfick — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:41:27 +0000

The new ZT-180 based 10" tablets are open, including a linux based USB loader which someone released last Friday (I successfully flashed mine with it). The 7" inch (VIA8508 and WM8505) ones I think are all open, I think the Rockchip ones are also. Many of these are considered Eken M00x clones or mine is a FlyTouch clone I believe. They load via a uboot script folder placed on the sdcard. Do fact check yourself before ordering. :)

There really isn't a lot of hardware on the devices to struggle with device support problems. Most of them use an RT2070 or 3070 wifi USB dongle, linux kernel support. I think they all meet the "Open Device Level 0" criteria in my other post, and most meet the Freedom 1.1 criteria of Level 1 also. I have no idea if they meet Freedom 1.2, they might. No modem -> no modem processors, perhaps thers is firmware on the wifi? Feel free to email me via slatedroid if you need more specifics (same username w/ caps). Boy do I wish LWN supported user emailing!

Many open android tablet devices

dlang — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:21:20 +0000

As you say, the documentation of what ones are open is hard to find. so can you say what ones you found?

Well, it's only natural...

dlang — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:20:37 +0000

the thing is that the hardware in question _is_ open, you can put whatever you want on it.

however, the FSF doesn't want to say that the hardware is open if the vendor offers closed software on it.

I would love it if all the hardware that has closed software pre-installed on it was also open and I could put my software on it instead.

saying that hardware isn't open enough if it is offered with the option of closed software means that you drive manufacturers into an either-or situation. they can either support the closed software that most of their customers want, or they can have 'open hardware' (even though the hardware doesn't change). there is no company out there that will willingly eliminate all sales for people who want to use closed software to support the people who want nothing but free software.

25 years of making people who agree with you cringe

Fats — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:43:34 +0000

All those end-users who "just want things to work", and click through unacceptable end-user licences they don't even read in order to make them work, are causing those of us who want to be free significant problems.

I'm happily running Flash, I've no problem with the EULA. I feel myself more free than you. You seem to have some conviction that forbids you to use some things which are provided to you for free.

greets,
Staf.

How not to recognize free hardware

sorpigal — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:16:56 +0000

The tragic part about this is that in their fervor to label only products which comply strictly with all non-technical requirements, such as packaging and marketing, they set such a high barrier to marking that few manufacturers will bother, which leaves relatively average Free Software supporters unable to distinguish completely closed hardware from the hardware that actually supports the technical things that the FSF is trying to require.

The result is that I'll be buying more closed hardware than if they had a less hard-lined stance, or permitted different levels of compliance (with different labels).

"Hint, hint"

jeremiah — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:16:21 +0000

I take it that means you're not going to change the name of the site to "GNU/Linux Weekly News." ;) Something about the tone of your comment suggests that someone has tried before, and that it didn't go well.

</humor>

DRM vs. Free Software.

Seegras — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:59:39 +0000

I don't see any point of mentioning DRM at all. Either I can take full control of the device and run whatever code I want, in which case its "Open Hardware", or I can't. In which case it's short of a fucking brick.

Of course, DRM-schemes do hamper adoption of free software, but only in respect of people not being able to play/process the content they want, because said schemes are probably not implemented in free software (out of fear the scheme might be defeated -- which of course is stupid in the first place; a working DRM is a mathematical impossibility). But DRM belongs to the "Open Content" and "Open File Formats" debate, and has nothing whatsoever to do with hardware in the first place.

How not to recognize free hardware

mpr22 — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:46:22 +0000

Established but hardly popular; as far as I know, en_GB speakers who reverse the silencing of k/g before n do so either consciously due to wilful eccentricity or unconsciously due to immersion in a wilfully eccentric subculture.

Draft Spec For an Open Device Initiative

Seegras — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:41:49 +0000

You are absolutely going in the right direction.

This is where the debate should be going.

Draft Spec For an Open Device Initiative

martinfick — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:59:36 +0000

The Open Source Hardware initiative is a very different idea than what both the author was talking about and what the FSF is proposing to endorse. I suspect that it is also well beyond what most people care about. It would be nice to have a spec that addresses what the author is suggesting, and it would be great if there were a trademark and fancy logo associated with it. Here is my first draft suggestion for the spec:

Open Device Level 0: Functionally Open

Freedom 0.0: The ability to load software on the device unimpeded.
Freedom 0.1: The ability to access all the intended device's hardware functionality via free/libre software running on the main (non auxiliary) processors. A free/libre software reference implementation must exist to do this.
Freedom 0.2: The ability to use all the device's intended functionality (except for any device communication functionality) without the device communicating with any other device. The reference software implementation must not require external activation of any sorts.

Open Device Level 1: Completely Open

Freedom 1.0: All of the freedoms of level 0
Freedom 1.1: The ability to interact with the device externally with only free/libre software. A free/libre software reference implementation must exist which implements any protocols required to communicate with the device to exercise all the freedoms of level 0. This includes loading software or accessing its functionality such as communications protocols.

Note: the likely currently precludes any cell phones from being level 1 open devices since there are no complete free/libre software stacks for cell networks (yet).

Freedom 1.2: The ability to access the entire device's intended functionality with entirely free/libre software, including all device peripherals (auxiliary processors) running only free/libre software. Free/libre software reference implementations must exist for all device peripherals.

Please, tear it apart... Anyone want to propose a logo? :)

How not to recognize free hardware

wookey — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:41:26 +0000

You picked a less than ideal example there, because Debian has BSD-kerneled variants too: http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/ (which I believe is due to be a fully-supported port in the upcoming Squeeze release). So substitue almost any other Linux distro to make the point whilst avoiding quibblers.

But I take your point, and agree with you that it seems to make little sense.

How not to recognize free hardware

nye — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:39:17 +0000

s/dialogue/dialect/, obviously.

"Hint, hint"

corbet — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:29:47 +0000

Yes, it might be nice to get clarification from the FSF.

But: the FSF refuses to talk to anybody who will not promise to use their "approved terminology." I am unwilling to make such promises. So I'll not be contacting them for clarification.

How not to recognize free hardware

nye — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:18:03 +0000

Don't know about en_IE, but in en_GB it's not pronounced that way - unless perhaps in some regional dialogue I've never heard. I had no idea the desktop environment was supposed to be pronounced like that - I'd be surprised if anyone ever did.

How not to recognize free hardware

aggelos — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:08:40 +0000

Oh, I think I get how you're reading the text now. You're taking "a general-purpose facility for installing other programs" to be something like dpkg instead of something like apt. That is plausible, even though if they wanted to do that I'd expect they'd phrase it in no unambiguous terms. It would be interesting to get a clarification from them. Hint, hint :)

My other points still stand of course.

LWN: Comments on "How not to recognize free hardware"

Many open android tablet devices

Oppressive Adobe Flash EULA

OT: gnome pronunciation

You are correct - that's how things are going...

Free source software

Oppressive Adobe Flash EULA

Oppressive Adobe Flash EULA

25 years of making people who agree with you cringe

Oppressive Adobe Flash EULA

25 years of making people who agree with you cringe

How not to recognize free hardware

How not to recognize free hardware

Open Source Hardware, anyone?

It is a contest?

It is a contest?

GPL is hack - that's why it works...

How not to recognize free hardware

Adobe EULA stupidities

Well, it's only natural...

"Hint, hint"

How not to recognize free hardware

Free source software

25 years of making people who agree with you cringe

Well, it's only natural...

25 years of making people who agree with you cringe

Many open android tablet devices

Many open android tablet devices

Well, it's only natural...

25 years of making people who agree with you cringe

How not to recognize free hardware

"Hint, hint"

DRM vs. Free Software.

How not to recognize free hardware

Draft Spec For an Open Device Initiative

Draft Spec For an Open Device Initiative

How not to recognize free hardware

How not to recognize free hardware

"Hint, hint"

How not to recognize free hardware

How not to recognize free hardware

Open Source Hardware, anyone?