drummyfish/less_retarded_wiki
5
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Update

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Miloslav Ciz 2025-05-08 20:41:37 +02:00
parent 8b530b5952
commit 64fd120266
35 changed files with 2034 additions and 2007 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

8
free_hardware.md
View file

@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
# Free/Freedom-Friendly Hardware
Free (as in freedom) hardware is a form of ethical [hardware](hardware.md) aligned with the philosophy of [free (as in freedom) software](free_software.md), i.e. having a free [licensed](license.md) designed that allows anyone to study, use, modify and share such designs for any purpose and so prevent abuse of users by technology. Let us note the word *free* refers to user freedom, not price! Sometimes the term may be more broadly and not completely correctly used even for hardware that's just highly compatible with purely free software systems -- let us rather call these a **freedom friendly hardware** -- and sometimes people misunderstand the term *free* as meaning "gratis hardware"; to avoid misunderstandings [GNU](gnu.md) recommends using the term **free design hardware** or **libre hardware** for free hardware in the strict sense, i.e. hardware with free licensed design. Sometimes -- nowadays maybe even more often -- the term *"[open source](open_source.md)" hardware* or *open hardware* with very similar meaning is encountered, but that is of course a [harmful](harmful.md) terminology as open source is an inherently harmful [capitalist](capitalism.md) movement ignoring the ethical question of freedom -- hence it is recommended to prefer using the term free hardware. Sometimes the acronym FOSH (free and open source hardware) is used neutrally, similarly to [FOSS](foss.md). Indeed we will find many different definitions of *free hardware* and *free technology*, usually with same core ideas but sometimes in disagreement; for example the [Trash Magic](trash_magic.md) manifesto states that free hardware and technology is that which "gives more than it takes", that it's only that which can be made from the available waste stream of current society even by a non-expert (i.e. being free not just legally but also [practically](de_facto.md)), which is further not encumbered by any intellectual property etc.; for this it excludes "open source" hardware from inclusion under free hardware (as "open source" hardware may require factories, high expertise etc.).
Free (as in freedom) hardware is a form of ethical [hardware](hardware.md) aligned with the philosophy of [free (as in freedom) software](free_software.md), i.e. built upon a free [licensed](license.md) designed that allows anyone to study, use, modify and share such designs for any purpose and so prevent abuse of users by technological means. Let us note the word *[free](libre.md)* refers to user freedom, not price! Occasionally the term may be more broadly and not completely accurately used even for hardware that's just highly compatible with purely free software systems -- let us rather call these a **freedom friendly hardware** -- and sometimes people misunderstand the term *free* as meaning "gratis hardware"; to avoid misunderstandings [GNU](gnu.md) recommends using the term **free design hardware** or **libre hardware** for free hardware in the strict sense, i.e. hardware with free licensed design. Sometimes -- nowadays maybe even more often -- the term *"[open source](open_source.md)" hardware* or *open hardware* with very similar meaning is encountered, but that is of course a [harmful](harmful.md) terminology as open source is an inherently harmful [capitalist](capitalism.md) movement ignoring the ethical question of freedom -- hence it is recommended to prefer using the term free hardware. Sometimes the acronym FOSH (free and open source hardware) is used neutrally, similarly to [FOSS](foss.md). Indeed we will find many different definitions of *free hardware* and *free technology*, usually with same core ideas but sometimes in disagreement; for example the [Trash Magic](trash_magic.md) manifesto states that free hardware and technology is that which "gives more than it takes", that it's only that which can be made from the available waste stream of current society even by a non-expert (i.e. being free not just legally but also [practically](de_facto.md)), which is further not encumbered by any intellectual property etc.; for this it excludes "open source" hardware from inclusion under free hardware (as "open source" hardware may require factories, high expertise etc.).
[GNU](gnu.md), just like [us](lrs.md), highly advocates for free hardware, though, unlike with software, they don't completely reject using non-free hardware nowadays, not just for practical reasons (purely free hardware basically doesn't exist), but also because hardware is fundamentally different from software and it is possible to use *some* non-free hardware (usually the older one) relatively safely, without sacrificing freedom. The [FSF](fsf.md) issues so called **[Respects Your Freedom](ryf.md)** (RYF) certification for non-malicious hardware products, both free and non-free, that can be used with 100% free software (even though RYF has also been a target of some criticism of free software activists).
[GNU](gnu.md), in agreement with [us](lrs.md), advocates for free hardware, though, unlike with software, they currently don't advocate for absolutely restraining from using non-free hardware, not just for practical reasons (purely free hardware practically doesn't exist), but also because hardware is fundamentally different from software and it is possible to use *some* non-free hardware (usually the older machines) relatively safely, without sacrificing freedom "too much". The [FSF](fsf.md) issues so called **[Respects Your Freedom](ryf.md)** (RYF) certification for non-malicious hardware products, both free and non-free, that can be used with 100% free software (even though RYF has also been a target of some criticism of free software activists).
We, [LRS](lrs.md), advocate for more strict criteria than just a free-licensed hardware design, for example we prefer complete [public domain](public_domain.md) and advocate high [simplicity](kiss.md) which is a prerequisite of true freedom -- see [less retarded hardware](less_retarded_hardware.md) for more. We also stress that [freedom distance](freedom_distance.md) has to be minimized.
We, [LRS](lrs.md), advocate for more strict criteria than just a free-licensed hardware design, for example we prefer unrestrained [public domain](public_domain.md) and stress high [simplicity](kiss.md) as a necessary prerequisite for [true freedom](freedom_distance.md) -- see [less retarded hardware](less_retarded_hardware.md) for more. We also stress that [freedom distance](freedom_distance.md) has to be minimized.
The topic of free hardware is a bit messy, free hardware definition is not as straightforward as that of free software because hardware, a physical thing, has some inherently different properties than software and it is also not as easy to design and create so it evolves more slowly than software and it is much more difficult to create hardware completely from the ground up. Now consider the very question "what even is hardware"? There is a grey area between hardware and software, sometimes we see [firmware](firmware.md) as hardware, sometimes as software, sometimes pure software can be hardwired into a circuit so it basically behaves like hardware etc. Hardware design also has different levels, a higher level design may be free-licensed but its physical implementation may require existing lower level components that are non-free -- does such hardware count as free or not? How much down does free go -- do peripherals have to be free? Do the chips have to be free? Do the transistors themselves have to be free? We have to keep these things in mind. While in the software world it is usually quite easy to label a piece of software as free or not (at least legally), with hardware we rather tend to speak of different levels of freedom, at least for now.
The subject of free hardware is a little messy, free hardware definition is not as straightforward as that of free software because hardware, a physical substance, is by many attributes essentially different from software and, unlike software, it is also not as easy to design and manufacture and thus it evolves more slowly than software, and it is generally much more challenging (difficult, costly, ...) to create hardware completely from the ground up. Now consider the very question "what even is hardware"? There is a gray area between hardware and software, sometimes we view [firmware](firmware.md) as hardware, sometimes as software, sometimes pure software can be hardwired into a circuit so it basically behaves like hardware etc. Hardware design also has different levels, a higher level design may be free-licensed but its physical implementation may require existing lower level components that are non-free -- does such hardware count as free or not? How much down does free go -- do peripherals have to be free? Do the chips have to be free? Do the transistors themselves have to be free? We have to keep these things in mind. While in the software world it is usually quite easy to label a piece of software as free or not (at least legally), with hardware we rather tend to speak of different levels of freedom, at least for now.
## Existing Free And Freedom-Friendly Hardware And Firmware