Preston Maness ☭<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@unix_discussions" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>unix_discussions</span></a></span> Can always trust RMS to be very pedantic^W specific. </p><p>The URL he mentions:</p><p><a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.en.html" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardwa</span><span class="invisible">re-designs.en.html</span></a></p><p>>In 2014, if we had a free design for a CPU chip suitable for a PC, mass-produced chips made from that design would not give us the same freedom in the hardware domain. If we're going to buy a product mass produced in a factory, this dependence on the factory causes most of the same problems as a nonfree design. For free designs to give us hardware freedom, we need future fabrication technology.<br>><br>>We can envision a future in which our personal fabricators can make chips, and our robots can assemble and solder them together with transformers, switches, keys, displays, fans and so on. In that future we will all make our own computers (and fabricators and robots), and we will all be able to take advantage of modified designs made by those who know hardware. The arguments for rejecting nonfree software will then apply to nonfree hardware designs too.<br>><br>>That future is years away, at least. In the meantime, there is no need to reject hardware with nonfree designs on principle.</p><p>"For free designs to give us hardware freedom, we need future fabrication technology."</p><p>Or we need collective ownership and control of the means of production. But alas, Stallman is a liberal, and does not like that idea.</p><p>>In the meantime, there is no need to reject hardware with nonfree designs on principle.<br>><br>>...<br>><br>>Although we need not reject digital hardware made from nonfree designs in today's circumstances, we need to develop free designs and should use them when feasible. They provide advantages today, and in the future they may be the only way to use free software.</p><p>Software is subservient to the hardware that runs it. If the hardware design is nonfree, then we may not be able to run the free software. Cory Doctorow's ( <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>pluralistic</span></a></span> ) "Lockdown: The Coming War on General Purpose Computing" was quite prescient in that regard (<a href="https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lock</span><span class="invisible">down.html</span></a>), and I'm glad Stallman recognized the threat too. </p><p><a href="https://tenforward.social/tags/riscv" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>riscv</span></a> <a href="https://tenforward.social/tags/FreeHardware" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>FreeHardware</span></a> <a href="https://tenforward.social/tags/FreeSoftware" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>FreeSoftware</span></a> <a href="https://tenforward.social/tags/socialism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>socialism</span></a> <a href="https://tenforward.social/tags/communism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>communism</span></a> <a href="https://tenforward.social/tags/marxism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>marxism</span></a></p>