Richard Stallman: Why we need free digital iron circuits
How far do free software ideas go to iron? Is there a moral obligation to make iron schemes free for the same reason that programs should be free? Is it necessary to ensure that our freedom to abandon the iron, made by non-free plans?
Free software is important for freedom, not because of its price. Users are free to use and copy the software, changing it or not. More precisely, it can be formulated by the four principles of freedom:
- freedom to run the program as you want, and for any purpose
- freedom to study the source code and change it according to needs
- the freedom to make exact copies, distribute and sell them
- the freedom to make copies of modified versions, distribute and sell them
')
Applying these principles to iron: free iron is one that can be freely used and copied, distributed for a fee or for free. But since iron copying systems do not exist (except keys, DNA and external forms of plastic objects), is the concept of free iron possible? Most of the iron is done according to plans and schemes. The scheme is primary.
Therefore, we need the concept of the iron circuit. That is, a scheme that can be used to make iron, and which can be copied and distributed, changing or not. Four principles of freedom must be applied to this scheme. And then "free iron" will mean iron, whose schemes are free.
When people come up with the idea of ​​free software, they immediately think of free copying. Many programs are free, they cost nothing to download. But by saying “free,” we don't mean that.
Other issues may arise with iron - its production costs money, so commercially manufactured iron will not be free to copy. But this does not mean that his schemes can not be free. What you can print with a 3D printer can be cheap, but not free, due to the cost of materials. In our case, the question of freedom is higher than the question of free - a device that denies people their freedom is not worth anything.
The terms "open iron" and "iron with open circuits" are sometimes used instead of "free iron" - but these terms diminish the meaning of freedom. They are derived from “open source software,” which roughly means “free software,” but does not mean freedom. To emphasize the importance of freedom, we say free iron. There is no such implication in the word “open”.
From an ethical point of view, the software should be free. A non-free program is unfair. Is it possible to transfer this point of view on iron?
It is necessary, in those areas that can provide 3D printing (more precisely, any method of personal production of things). Models for the manufacture of things on the printer (practically useful, not just decorative) should be free - since they were developed for practical use. Users must control these items for the same reason that they need to control the programs they use.
The distribution of proprietary utility schemes is as harmful as the distribution of proprietary software. When choosing a printer, choose the ones that work with free software. Some printers are made on free circuits, but, for example, Makerbot circuits are not free.
Is the existence of non-free digital iron unfair (in this case, iron, which also has analog circuits)? Do we, for the sake of freedom, need to reject iron with nonfree schemes in the same way as we reject nonfree programs?
Although many draw parallels between programs and iron schemes, I believe that the circumstances of these two entities are different.
Modern manufacturing of chips and printed circuit boards resembles printing machines - they work in mass production. This is more like the task of copying a book in the 1950s than a modern copying of software.
Freedom to copy and modify programs is an ethical necessity, as this can be done by those who use these programs. The equipment for using the software (computer) is enough to copy and modify it. Also, the computer is enough to download and run a modified version of the program - even if you are not a programmer.
But how does this apply to gland? Not everyone who can use digital hardware knows how to change the circuit of a circuit or the circuit of a chip, although everyone who has a computer has the equipment necessary for that.
The difference between iron and software is that you cannot build and run a PCB or chip design on a computer. Making a big pay is hard work. Production of the chip is generally not available to individuals - at an affordable price, they can be made only in mass production. With the help of modern technologies, it is impossible to download and run the version of digital iron that Vasya Hackers changed, just as you can download and run a program that Vasya Hackers changed. Therefore, the four principles of freedom do not give users the same control over the development of iron, what they have over the programs.
In 1983, there were no free operating systems, but it was clear that if we had one, it could be used immediately. All that was missing was the code.
In 2014, if we had a free CPU chip scheme suitable for a PC, mass production would not give us the same freedom in the field of iron. If we need to buy a product in a factory, then our dependence on it gives rise to the same problems as dependence on non-free schemes. In order for free schemes to give us freedom in hardware, we need manufacturing technology from the future.
One can imagine a future in which personal devices make chips, and robots assemble them together with transformers, switches, buttons, displays, fans, and so on. In such a future, we ourselves will make computers for ourselves, and hardware for making iron and robots. And everyone will be able to take advantage of the modified schemes that will make people versed in the gland. Then the arguments by which non-free programs must be rejected are also suitable for non-free iron schemes.
But in the coming years, this is not expected. In the meantime, it makes no sense to reject iron with non-free circuits.
Although it is too early to reject iron, we need to develop free iron schemes, and use them whenever possible. Today they have advantages, and in the future they may be the only way to use free software.
Iron on free schemes can make different companies, which will reduce dependence on manufacturers. It will be possible to organize production for group orders. Access to the schemes will allow you to search and correct errors. Free schemes will serve as the basis for the creation of computers and other complex devices whose schemes will be published. Such devices will contain fewer parts that can be used against us.
Even before we learn how to make iron ourselves, we may need free circuits - they can be the only way to avoid non-free programs. Secret specifications and requests for non-free hardware make it less compatible with free software. Some chips in phones and graphics accelerators require firmware, signed by the manufacturers. Every program on your computer that someone other than you can change is an unfair power over you. Such iron is harmful. All modern phone models are malicious.
Someday, free software can only be run on free systems. Let's make it so that by this time we have free schemes for such systems, and we hope that we will be able to make them quite cheap.
If you are developing iron - make your development free. If you use it - join our campaigns that encourage manufacturers to make iron schemes free.
Copyright 2015 Richard Stallman. Released under Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives 3.0 license.
Free software is important for freedom, not because of its price. Users are free to use and copy the software, changing it or not. More precisely, it can be formulated by the four principles of freedom:
- freedom to run the program as you want, and for any purpose
- freedom to study the source code and change it according to needs
- the freedom to make exact copies, distribute and sell them
- the freedom to make copies of modified versions, distribute and sell them
')
Applying these principles to iron: free iron is one that can be freely used and copied, distributed for a fee or for free. But since iron copying systems do not exist (except keys, DNA and external forms of plastic objects), is the concept of free iron possible? Most of the iron is done according to plans and schemes. The scheme is primary.
Therefore, we need the concept of the iron circuit. That is, a scheme that can be used to make iron, and which can be copied and distributed, changing or not. Four principles of freedom must be applied to this scheme. And then "free iron" will mean iron, whose schemes are free.
When people come up with the idea of ​​free software, they immediately think of free copying. Many programs are free, they cost nothing to download. But by saying “free,” we don't mean that.
Other issues may arise with iron - its production costs money, so commercially manufactured iron will not be free to copy. But this does not mean that his schemes can not be free. What you can print with a 3D printer can be cheap, but not free, due to the cost of materials. In our case, the question of freedom is higher than the question of free - a device that denies people their freedom is not worth anything.
The terms "open iron" and "iron with open circuits" are sometimes used instead of "free iron" - but these terms diminish the meaning of freedom. They are derived from “open source software,” which roughly means “free software,” but does not mean freedom. To emphasize the importance of freedom, we say free iron. There is no such implication in the word “open”.
Is there an injustice in the non-free gland?
From an ethical point of view, the software should be free. A non-free program is unfair. Is it possible to transfer this point of view on iron?
It is necessary, in those areas that can provide 3D printing (more precisely, any method of personal production of things). Models for the manufacture of things on the printer (practically useful, not just decorative) should be free - since they were developed for practical use. Users must control these items for the same reason that they need to control the programs they use.
The distribution of proprietary utility schemes is as harmful as the distribution of proprietary software. When choosing a printer, choose the ones that work with free software. Some printers are made on free circuits, but, for example, Makerbot circuits are not free.
Should we reject non-free digital hardware?
Is the existence of non-free digital iron unfair (in this case, iron, which also has analog circuits)? Do we, for the sake of freedom, need to reject iron with nonfree schemes in the same way as we reject nonfree programs?
Although many draw parallels between programs and iron schemes, I believe that the circumstances of these two entities are different.
Modern manufacturing of chips and printed circuit boards resembles printing machines - they work in mass production. This is more like the task of copying a book in the 1950s than a modern copying of software.
Freedom to copy and modify programs is an ethical necessity, as this can be done by those who use these programs. The equipment for using the software (computer) is enough to copy and modify it. Also, the computer is enough to download and run a modified version of the program - even if you are not a programmer.
But how does this apply to gland? Not everyone who can use digital hardware knows how to change the circuit of a circuit or the circuit of a chip, although everyone who has a computer has the equipment necessary for that.
The difference between iron and software is that you cannot build and run a PCB or chip design on a computer. Making a big pay is hard work. Production of the chip is generally not available to individuals - at an affordable price, they can be made only in mass production. With the help of modern technologies, it is impossible to download and run the version of digital iron that Vasya Hackers changed, just as you can download and run a program that Vasya Hackers changed. Therefore, the four principles of freedom do not give users the same control over the development of iron, what they have over the programs.
In 1983, there were no free operating systems, but it was clear that if we had one, it could be used immediately. All that was missing was the code.
In 2014, if we had a free CPU chip scheme suitable for a PC, mass production would not give us the same freedom in the field of iron. If we need to buy a product in a factory, then our dependence on it gives rise to the same problems as dependence on non-free schemes. In order for free schemes to give us freedom in hardware, we need manufacturing technology from the future.
One can imagine a future in which personal devices make chips, and robots assemble them together with transformers, switches, buttons, displays, fans, and so on. In such a future, we ourselves will make computers for ourselves, and hardware for making iron and robots. And everyone will be able to take advantage of the modified schemes that will make people versed in the gland. Then the arguments by which non-free programs must be rejected are also suitable for non-free iron schemes.
But in the coming years, this is not expected. In the meantime, it makes no sense to reject iron with non-free circuits.
We need free digital iron circuits
Although it is too early to reject iron, we need to develop free iron schemes, and use them whenever possible. Today they have advantages, and in the future they may be the only way to use free software.
Iron on free schemes can make different companies, which will reduce dependence on manufacturers. It will be possible to organize production for group orders. Access to the schemes will allow you to search and correct errors. Free schemes will serve as the basis for the creation of computers and other complex devices whose schemes will be published. Such devices will contain fewer parts that can be used against us.
Even before we learn how to make iron ourselves, we may need free circuits - they can be the only way to avoid non-free programs. Secret specifications and requests for non-free hardware make it less compatible with free software. Some chips in phones and graphics accelerators require firmware, signed by the manufacturers. Every program on your computer that someone other than you can change is an unfair power over you. Such iron is harmful. All modern phone models are malicious.
Someday, free software can only be run on free systems. Let's make it so that by this time we have free schemes for such systems, and we hope that we will be able to make them quite cheap.
If you are developing iron - make your development free. If you use it - join our campaigns that encourage manufacturers to make iron schemes free.
Copyright 2015 Richard Stallman. Released under Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives 3.0 license.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/253250/
All Articles