will you distribute information about lowrisc, an open source cpu beeing made?
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
Lowrisc is making an open source cpu. They want to manufacture and sell a mainboard comparable to a raspberry pi. Running gnulinux. They do not have the means to make it all by themselves. They ask people to contribute. I wrote the computer science department of two universities. One has said, they will look into if they can contribute.
You should contact universities you think could be interested in participating in the development.
I think it is better if you phone the computer science department first and ask if you may send an informative email.
A template could have this form.
University
Computer science department.
Lowrisc http://www.lowrisc.org/ is a Cambridge University based riscv http://riscv.org/ cpu project. The cpu is open source and everybody has access to the built in cpu software. One lowrisc founder is Alex Bradbury http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/network/alex-bradbury/. In this youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeS8cBAHopc&feature=youtu.be you may watch his latest presentation on lowrisc. Alex Bradbury was part of making the Raspberry Pi computer.
Lowrisc's means are limited. Being an open source project they ask people to contribute to lowrisc. If your computer science department has the asked skills, would the university consider contributing software to lowrisc?
If you know of european universities that could be interested in lowrisc, will you inform them?
With friendly greetings
your name
Firstly, While lowRISC is a cool project for what it is, OpenRISC is a better project. lowRISC is under the BSD-pushover license and is able to be locked down by various manufacturers. OpenRISC is GPL and needs all modifications to be published.
Secondly, we focus on Free software/free hardware design here and not open source. Open source doesn't address the issues of freedom. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
Are you saying that Stallman would not buy a lowrisc notebook? Would you buy one? I would. Has Stallman said you are not allowed to use intel and amd computers? If he has not, then why should he oppose using a lowrisc computer? Do atheos wifi software have a FSF approved license? If Stallman's computer has a hdd, is it free sofware? If he has said you are not allowed to use intel and amd computers, then what should computer users do? Are you opposing to advertise and promote lowrisc? Does the license stop you from selling a lowrisc computer with a FSF approval? What is the roadmap for an openrisc mainboard that is comparable to a raspberry pi? Lowrisc's is a couple of years. Not that I do not think lowrisc will be delayed. Is it trisquel's opinion, that if you have a choice between a piece of open source software and nothing, you should choose the latter?
Sorry for interfering, and sorry for my brevity (I'm not using my own computer and this keyboard is half malfunctioning, which forces me to use the virtual keyboard).
I want to make it clear that I don't speak for RMS. I do speak to myself and my views are *mostly* based on what I *currently* understand about the free software philosophy.
I'm not sure I could make a decision on which architecture to prefer, that's something I'm not smart enough to understand.
As far as license goes (not evaluating the ideology of the directors/owners/copyright holders of the projects), I tend to prefer copylefted free software projects over lax permissive ones. There are cases however, in which I'm convinced by other people to try lax permissive free software projects, but I don't show my support so broadly.
Concerning the project ideology, I don't show my support so broadly in favor of it unless I think I'm absolutely sure of its capability to care for society's freedom towards functional data.
By the answers already given by others, you know that everything that is open most certainly misses the point of the free software philosophy. That said, open hardware is not different. Even more, an "open hardware" doesn't exist, because the hardware is a finished object. What we support in the hardware field are free hardware designs.
To understand what are free hardware designs and why we don't immediately oppose the use of non-free hardware designs, visit the GNU project's web site and look for the related terminology.
To answer all your questions regarding secondary embedded processors, disk drives, mouse and keyboard firmwares and so on, see the previous reference and also go to FSF's web site and read the certification criteria for the Respects Your Freedom (RYF) certificate.
Finally, everything here is not guaranteed to be the official opinion of the whole Trisquel project, let alone of the whole Trisquel community. I'm not sure if this is really an official rule here, but as a matter of etiquette, I would consider the official opinion of the project only what is in the community guidelines and what has been published in the Trisquel blog, and some of the tickets/issues/bugs that have been closed (specially those about compliance with the GNU FSDG).
I cannot speak for Stallman, I don't like to associate software/hardware to 'does Stallman run X?' - it makes the movement more a cult that worships certain people rather than the work and philosophy that is present.
If I was offered a choice of Intel/AMD X86 systems OR lowRISC then I would choose lowRISC. That said it would only be because it is the lesser of two evils.
Remember the lesser of two evils, is still evil.
We should be moving towards, total solutions not just another band aid solution because it is easier.
I push for total software freedom, not just good enough like many open source groups do. It should be the same for hardware.
Your main point there is that you prefer projects to use copyleft licenses over non-copyleft licenses. Fair enough. However...
>> Remember the lesser of two evils, is still evil. <<
... you seem to be saying that non-copyleft hardware design licenses are "evil", which implies that you think free software licenses are evil too. All the most common non-copyleft licenses are accepted as free software licenses by the FSF, and some of them are even accepted as "GPL compatible". Only proprietary licenses are unethical, and even then, it's hyperbolic to call that evil. Calling a free software (or hardware) designer's project "evil" because it does not pick a copyleft license is truly 'Life of Brian' in its pointless sectarianism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4
Do you realize that macos is but bsd + frontend? And that windoze networking at least was largely based on non-copyleft free software? Both distributed as proprietary software. The point is non-copyleft (and I really should say non-GPL) software _enables_ bad things to happen. But perhaps you think those OSes are not evil too.
May I suggest you to understand where we are coming from do some more reading at https://gnu.org/philosophy/
Yes, I've read Stallman's articles at that link, and I agree that proprietary software is unethical, but as I said, I think calling proprietary software "evil" is over-stating your case.
Yes I realise that proprietary products are sometimes built on non-copyleft code. I agree that these products are unethical, but I don't agree that this makes non-copyleft software or licenses unethical. Proprietary products have also been built on top of copyleft code, eg Android is built on Linux, SteamOS is built on Debian, which contains a lot of copyleft code (including Linux). Does this make Linux or Debian "evil"? For that matter, Trisquel, like all GNU/Linux distributions, contains large chunks of non-copyleft code. Does this make Trisquel "evil"?
I agree. It is sad that the work put into permissively licensed software often ends up in proprietary software that subjugates its users. But that is a fact. And that is why I wish developers would favor a copylefted license (GPL or AGPL preferably). Anyway, software under a permissive license is free software: it respects the essential freedoms of its users, i.e., it is ethical.
On the contrary, proprietary software is evil. Running on top of a free operating system or deriving from free software under a permissive license (writing "being based on" in both cases is not a good idea: they are significantly different cases) does not make it better or worse.
"And that is why I wish developers would favor a copylefted license (GPL or AGPL preferably)."
You are wilfully ignoring the point that copylefted software like Linux does not stop proprietary products like Android being built on top of them. There are good arguments for using a copyleft license over a non-copyleft one. Preventing proprietary products incorporating free software is not one of them.
Again, "being built on" is an expression that does not help the debate. Distinctions ought to be made. When talking about reusing free code into proprietary software, copyleft prevents it. For instance, Google's additions to Linux are under the GPL. They are free. In contrast, because they chose a permissive license, FreeBSD developers have effectively helped Apple develop MacOS X, a proprietary operating system. Indeed, they have written code that Apple developers have not had to write.
Proprietary software running on top of a free operating system is a different issue: no free code helped the development. Licenses cannot solve that problem. Technology should not solve it either (that would be DRMs to prevent the users from running programs: a denial of freedom 0). Information is the solution: hopefully, users will understand that they deserve freedoms in their computing and that only free software respects their freedoms.
Whether proprietary add-ons are built into the same package(s), as in MacOSX/BSD, or built as separate packages as in Android/Linux (thus "on top") to avoid triggering copyleft, the negative outcome for the software freedom of users is exactly the same. If that's so, then there's no logical basis to the claim that copyleft licenses prevents re-use in freedom-denying systems more effectively than non-copyleft licenses do. In order to continue this discussion with you, I need you to explain either how Android/Linux) is less freedom-denying than MacOSX/BSD. If you can't do that, then I rest my case.
I need you to explain either how Android/Linux) is less freedom-denying than MacOSX/BSD.
Google's additions to Linux are free software. They do not deny our freedoms in any way. Parts of Mac OS X include BSD code and are proprietary. They deny our freedoms.
Google has to distribute its additions to Linux under the GPL because that is Linux's license ant it is a copylefted license. Apple can sublicense FreeBSD's code because of its permissive license.
When developing a program that does not reuse any code, the developer has no restriction on the choice of the license. If she has no ethics, she makes her software proprietary. The license of the operating system on which the program runs cannot impose any restriction on the license of the program that runs on it. The two works do not share anything. They are merely juxtaposed. It is like putting aside a Picasso painting and a Van Gogh painting: Picasso's copyright on his painting cannot impose any restriction on Van Gogh's painting (or vice versa).
I do not know how to be clearer.
jabjabs claims that OpenRISC is better than lowRRISK because lowRISK uses a non-copyleft license. As Stallman in his article on "free hardware designs" (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html) copyright licenses can only be enforced on the hardware *design*, not the manufactured hardware itself. A copyleft license does not prevent anyone making secret modifications to the design and manufacturing hardware that implements that secret modification. The copyleft is only enforceable if that person distributes the design itself. So in this case, it doesn't make any difference whether a copyleft or non-copyleft free software license is chosen, and we should support both projects. Particularly because, as I mentioned in another thread, free hardware designs like this (under whatever free software license) will make it much easier for projects like the FairPhone to support Replicant.
Congratulations on creating this project, and best of luck with turning it into a working computer that can run 100% free software.
About Stallman. I made a reference to Stallman. I could have made a reference to FSF.
About openrisc. Jabjabs, you make a reference to openrisc. I asked you, when will they produce hardware? I get no answer. Not that I think lowrisc will be able to uphold their time schedule. Still they have one.
About cult. You are telling us what lowrisc is. Bradbury has participated in making a mainboard, that now has a 5usd version. He is now making an open source mainboard. If I am correct, licensed that you can manufacture hardware. Give it a FSF free software lisence and sell it. Market will determine. What have you done, jabjabs? Lets buy minifree computers, how many are for sale?
The argument that riscv can turn into something non free is valid. Non free riscv hardware can happen. Riscv.org specifications do not get non free. Is it a fact, if consumers demanded it, there would be free software android phones for sale? Are you going to contact universities? Inform them about lowrisc and ask them to contribute? Jabjabs, lembas and vegetable?
If there are forum users who contact universities, I would like to know how they responded?
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios