Free Technology (was: Re: gEDA-user: Electric clothing and gEDA at NYLUG!)

[Karel Kulhavý <clock@twibright.com>]

>    - MIT Media Labs 
>    - NYU ITP 
>    - Parsons School of Design
>    - Harvard's Visual and Environment Studies
>    - CMU School of Art and Human Computer Interaction Institute 
>    - others...
> 
> 2) Write the first book on "Open Source Physical Computing Tools".

I don't like the term "Open Source" because it means only the sources are open
and nothing more. What is most interesting for me is when the design is free
(libre).

I would rather introduce the term "Free Technology" that requires
1) The design tools are free technology too (recursivity property)
2) There is a building guide for a layman how to build and use the product
   (portability of the building process and usage property).
3) The licence for the documentation permits incorporation into other free
  technologies (inclusion property) and inclusion into non-free technology
  is discouraged (spreading property).

Then Free Software can be viewed as Free Technology manifesting itselfs
in software area. The corresponding properties are:
1) the compilers for FS are FT too (GCC et al.)
2) The guide is called README and is included in every .tar.gz
3) GPL

Another example, Ronja is a instance of FT in hardware.
1) the design tools are gEDA. gEDA is FS. FS is FT. design tool are
   thus FT in Ronja
2) The buliding guide is at http://ronja.twibright.com/tetrapolis/ ;-)
3) GPL, but instead of forbidding inclusion into non-FT, the inclusion
   is only discouraged in Ronja, because you can't forbid someone drawing
   the same circuit again and using it in his Proprietary (TM) Product.

What is particularly interesting is the point 2).
In software it means you can compile the software and don't have to be
kernel specialist and don't have to have the Super Duper Only Architecture
This Cool Project Compiles On (TM). You may be John Somebody and
your machine may be cheap i386, Sparc, MIPS, Alpha, your OS may
be Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Windows,...

In hardware it means you don't have to have Super Duper Only Factory
That This Wonderful Product Can Be Built in. You can be John Somebody
and your machine may be cheap electric drill, soldering iron, and you
don't have to choose particular PCB manufacturer. You can choose any
PCB factory in the world you like and is able to process Gerber RS274-X :)

I think Free Technology is the right thing that should be promoted.
And as Free Technology includes Free Software, promotion of FT includes
promotion of FS. They are not two separated entities, FT is a generalization
of FS that works regardless of what area are you talking about (software,
hardware, FPGA, electronics, mechanics, optics, chemistry, biology,
whatever...)

Stallman's concept of Free Software is absolutely wonderful and as we
all can see, works.

However, Richard Stallman says in
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-06-22-005-05-NW-LF
that Free Software should be promoted and
something he calls "free hardware" not because copying software is cheap and
copying hardware is expensive.  But he misses the point completely. What is
cheap is copying the technology.  Technology means "techno" and "logy". Techno
is "art" and logy is "knowledge".  Technology is "knowledge how to do something
well".  And nowadays, technology is what matters. And thus the concept works in
any area you want, regardless of what RMS said :)

Information is what matters in these days. It doesn't matter that a kg of iron
costs 20 CZK (USD 0.70). The development is much more expensive. When you share the
technology, you share the thing. Informations want to be free.

So promote, promote, promote :)

Cl<
> 
> 3) gEDA howto articles in monthly zines: 
>    - Everyday Practical Electronics
>    - Nuts and Volts
>    - Linux Journal
>    - Wired 
>    - etc.
> 
> > 	Yes, the debian and redhat packages are very important.  I've
> > finding myself also installing more and more things via the automated
> > systems rather than installing from source.  
> 
> The fink packages too (OS/X users higher level interface to
> apt-get/dpkg). Charles Lepple has been doing a fine job trying to keep
> these fink packages up to date.
> 
> > 	As Karel pointed out, opencollector.org seems to be the only
> > central place.  Maybe we should advertise it more as well.  
> > Anybody else have some more ideas/comments?  Thanks.
> 
> opencollector.org really is has a nice collection of tools, looks
> like it too just needs some promotion. I think its time for a book. A
> collaborative "Open Source Electronics Howto" might also work.
>