Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)

[Mark Rages <markrages@xxxxxxxxx>]

Many commenters on the license, including bunnie, seem to be making a
logic mistake:

"You can't say things *should* be this way, because things *are not* this way."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Is-Ought

So if hardware is not entirely free right now, with binary blobs even
in the most open drivers, does this mean that a license cannot require
fully open firmware?  No.  It may limit adoption of the license, but
that says nothing about if the license is correct to require that.  If
the license is a goal, rather just a codification of existing
practice, that is fine by me.

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
-- 
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
markrages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user