5 ms·

I'm interested if anyone has any insight into why there is a such a push for "Free" software (for example by the FSF, Richard Stallman), but not also "Free" har

by dmicah 12y ago

I'm interested if anyone has any insight into why there is a such a push for "Free" software (for example by the FSF, Richard Stallman), but not also "Free" hardware.

Retra 12y ago
It probably has a lot to do with the difficulty of modifying existing hardware. (That is: people don't often think about modifying their hardware, so they simply don't pay much attention to its design.)
mehrdada 12y ago
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4 http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4
walterbell 12y ago
Free Network Foundation, https://thefnf.org https://thefnf.org
caboteria 12y ago
From RMS himself: http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/1999062200505NWLF http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/1999062200505NWLF From the linked article: "Because copying hardware is so hard, the question of whether we're allowed to do it is not vitally important. I see no social imperative for free hardware designs like the imperative for free software. Freedom to copy software is an important right because it is easy now--any computer user can do it. Freedom to copy hardware is not as important, because copying hardware is hard to do. Present-day chip and board fabrication technology resembles the printing press. Copying hardware is as difficult as copying books was in the age of the printing press, or more so. So the ethical issue of copying hardware is more like the ethical issue of copying books 50 years ago, than like the issue of copying software today."
- cottonseed 12y ago
  I'm a little surprised and disappointed by this answer. It seems like all four of Stallman's four essential freedoms of free software apply to hardware: to use as you wish, to study and modify, to distribute, and to distribute modifications [0]. Only the freedom to distribute is mitigated by the cost of copying hardware. The others all seem like an active battleground for end-user freedoms, and the freedom to distribute will be more important as both design tools and fabrication technologies become cheaper. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
pingswept 12y ago
There is a push for open source hardware, but it is a substantially smaller movement. The Open Source Hardware just formed a year or two ago: http://www.oshwa.org/ http://www.oshwa.org/ The movement is growing, but it appears to be around 15 years behind software, and maybe not growing as quickly as OSS did.
- cottonseed 12y ago
  OSS branding dates to around 1998, ~17yrs old. The GNU Manifesto was published in 1983, the free software movement is ~32 years old.
  - pingswept 12y ago
    True, but the GPL wasn't widely used until Linux took off in the mid-90's, roughly 20 years ago. So I was off by a few years, you're right. (But I'd say the idea of free/libre software certainly predates even the GNU manifesto.)
    - cottonseed 12y ago
      What? When Linux was first released, the FSF had already written and released a ton of free software under the GPL, including Emacs (first release 1985), gcc (first release 1987), free versions of the unix command line utilities, etc.
    - aidenn0 12y ago
      I used the gnu utilites before linux existed.
cottonseed 12y ago
I've been wondering about this myself. My guess is that the utility argument of open source has culturally occluded the freedom arguments of free software. There's a reason we call it open source hardware and not free hardware. In the DIY electronics community, when someone suggests building an open/free professional tool (e.g. oscillscope, power supply, etc.), everyone responds "you're crazy, it would be too expensive, you'll never beat the cheap Chinese supplies (like Rigol) on price". Right next door, you'll see people who go to insane lengths to study and after-market hack the very same hardware. Hacks that would be both massively easier and more accessible if the hardware was open. (I'm thinking in particular of a thread on EEVBlog where a guy completely desoldered and resoldered (!) his Rigol oscilloscope to reverse engineer the front end.) I think the Novena is an awesome counter-example to this argument and I hope more people take on projects like this. (I would if I had the skillz.)

by dmicah 12y ago

I'm interested if anyone has any insight into why there is a such a push for "Free" software (for example by the FSF, Richard Stallman), but not also "Free" hardware.

Retra 12y ago

It probably has a lot to do with the difficulty of modifying existing hardware. (That is: people don't often think about modifying their hardware, so they simply don't pay much attention to its design.)

mehrdada 12y ago

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4 http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4

walterbell 12y ago

Free Network Foundation, https://thefnf.org https://thefnf.org

caboteria 12y ago

From RMS himself: http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/1999062200505NWLF http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/1999062200505NWLF From the linked article: "Because copying hardware is so hard, the question of whether we're allowed to do it is not vitally important. I see no social imperative for free hardware designs like the imperative for free software. Freedom to copy software is an important right because it is easy now--any computer user can do it. Freedom to copy hardware is not as important, because copying hardware is hard to do. Present-day chip and board fabrication technology resembles the printing press. Copying hardware is as difficult as copying books was in the age of the printing press, or more so. So the ethical issue of copying hardware is more like the ethical issue of copying books 50 years ago, than like the issue of copying software today."

cottonseed 12y ago
I'm a little surprised and disappointed by this answer. It seems like all four of Stallman's four essential freedoms of free software apply to hardware: to use as you wish, to study and modify, to distribute, and to distribute modifications [0]. Only the freedom to distribute is mitigated by the cost of copying hardware. The others all seem like an active battleground for end-user freedoms, and the freedom to distribute will be more important as both design tools and fabrication technologies become cheaper. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

pingswept 12y ago

There is a push for open source hardware, but it is a substantially smaller movement. The Open Source Hardware just formed a year or two ago: http://www.oshwa.org/ http://www.oshwa.org/ The movement is growing, but it appears to be around 15 years behind software, and maybe not growing as quickly as OSS did.

cottonseed 12y ago
OSS branding dates to around 1998, ~17yrs old. The GNU Manifesto was published in 1983, the free software movement is ~32 years old.
- pingswept 12y ago
  True, but the GPL wasn't widely used until Linux took off in the mid-90's, roughly 20 years ago. So I was off by a few years, you're right. (But I'd say the idea of free/libre software certainly predates even the GNU manifesto.)
  - cottonseed 12y ago
    What? When Linux was first released, the FSF had already written and released a ton of free software under the GPL, including Emacs (first release 1985), gcc (first release 1987), free versions of the unix command line utilities, etc.
  - aidenn0 12y ago
    I used the gnu utilites before linux existed.

cottonseed 12y ago

I've been wondering about this myself. My guess is that the utility argument of open source has culturally occluded the freedom arguments of free software. There's a reason we call it open source hardware and not free hardware. In the DIY electronics community, when someone suggests building an open/free professional tool (e.g. oscillscope, power supply, etc.), everyone responds "you're crazy, it would be too expensive, you'll never beat the cheap Chinese supplies (like Rigol) on price". Right next door, you'll see people who go to insane lengths to study and after-market hack the very same hardware. Hacks that would be both massively easier and more accessible if the hardware was open. (I'm thinking in particular of a thread on EEVBlog where a guy completely desoldered and resoldered (!) his Rigol oscilloscope to reverse engineer the front end.) I think the Novena is an awesome counter-example to this argument and I hope more people take on projects like this. (I would if I had the skillz.)