Vote Up
3
Votes
Vote Down

Getting a Ph.D. doesn’t make you less of an asshole.

I can’t barely write because of the LULZ ensued by the article.

Phew, well, last month released an OpenSource Hardware license, because they felt we needed it. And it gets better since we now have the Open Hardware Initiative. I don’t even dare to go and wonder about the funding

Here is a priceless part of the CERN Courier

“The CERN OHL thus specifically states that manufacturers of such products should not imply any kind of endorsement or responsibility on the part of the designer(s) when producing and/or selling hardware based on the design documents.”

Way to go to make the thing get into the production line. And YES it has the same spirit as the GPL. From article:

“The CERN OHL is an exciting achievement, with the potential of being the lead licence for new hardware projects, like the GNU GPL has been for free software,” said Alessandro Rubini, Free Software developer and co-author of “Linux Device Drivers”.

OK CERN, one thing is to make science open and another totally different is to go freetard on the hardware. I can understand they need specific hardware for the thing they do and like to have more people involved in order to improve it. But I don’t like to have free/open hardware on any of my machines.

Anyone remember the OGD1 it was $750 + shipping Something I won’t consider since I can get a whole computer (with drivers!!!) for less than that.

#1 Posted by bassboy on Jul 8, 2011 1:24 PM

“I can understand they need specific hardware for the thing they do and like to have more people involved in order to improve it. But I don’t like to have free/open hardware on any of my machines.”

When did they ever imply it was for /you/?

#2 Posted by masterLoki on Jul 8, 2011 1:45 PM

“... manufacturers of such products should not imply any kind of endorsement or responsibility on the part of the designer(s) when producing and/or selling hardware…”

This means

A) They are targeting sales at research centres/universities.

B) They are going to try to make hardware sellers catch this.

If A) they don’t imply me and I agree with them.
If B) they hope we get there eventually.

“with the potential of being the lead licence for new hardware projects, like the GNU GPL has been for free software”

If they are already carrying this philosophy, what can I say? Is like the hacking tales on MIT that gave birth to GNU philosophy.

Won’t they eventually begin to act like the FSF? Honestly I hope not. One is enough.

#3 Posted by ReverseControllerSE on Jul 8, 2011 4:12 PM

...specifically states that manufacturers of such products should not imply any kind of endorsement or responsibility on the part of the designer...

Aha, OK.

I don’t want to use such hardware.

KTHXBY

#4 Posted by DrLoser on Jul 8, 2011 6:43 PM

“largely motivated by well-intentioned envy of our colleagues who develop Linux device-drivers…”

I genuinely don’t understand this mania for Linux device drivers. The driver model is insanely crappy. The GPL effectively enforces yet another “process” on you (and we all know how low-level programmers so love process). And the end-result is invariably crappy.

Yet I (yes, I, a noted specialist in the field) am deluged weekly with prospective 12-month contracts to write the darned things. I’d be interested in a side-by-side comparison of writing a driver for the same hardware on both Linux and Windows. It might even be that Linux comes off better — I can’t see how — but I’d bet that in twelve months’ time, the driver would have to be rewritten; whereas the Windows model is by now about as stable as can be.

#5 Posted by imgx64 on Jul 8, 2011 10:35 PM

“manufacturers of such products should not imply any kind of endorsement or responsibility on the part of the designer(s) when producing and/or selling hardware”

What this means is: If I design some hardware (not that I can), and someone manufactures the said hardware using shoddy material, he can’t slap my name on it and pretend it’s what I intended.

“I can understand they need specific hardware for the thing they do and like to have more people involved in order to improve it. But I don’t like to have free/open hardware on any of my machines.”

Then don’t buy it. I’m pretty sure not many major hardware manufacturers would use it anyway, no matter how popular it gets among freetards, so don’t worry. If you’re worrying about the freetard preachers, they’re already here and they can’t get worse.

“I genuinely don’t understand this mania for Linux device drivers. The driver model is insanely crappy. The GPL effectively enforces yet another “process” on you (and we all know how low-level programmers so love process). And the end-result is invariably crappy.”

That’s exactly why they don’t want anyone but them to write these drivers. They want to endure the pain themselves (some sort of masochism?) instead of inflicting it on hardware manufacturers.

#6 Posted by imgx64 on Jul 8, 2011 11:11 PM

Few comments about the license itself.

Why is the license available in PDF only1? This makes copy-pasting really annoying because it puts several newlines in each paragraph instead of word wrapping.

“[3.3.]c. license the modified Documentation under the terms and conditions of this Licence or, where applicable, a later version of this Licence as may be issued by CERN”

What if someone doesn’t trust CERN and wants to release it under OHL1.1-only? This has already happened to the GPL, even the Linux kernel is GPLv2-only.

“[3.3.]d. send a copy of the modified Documentation to all Licensors that contributed to the parts of the Documentation that were modified, as well as to any other Licensor who
has requested to receive a copy of the modified Documentation and has provided a means of contact with the Documentation.”

This violates several definitions of “Freedom” as put by different factions of FOSS. I’m certain it violates Debian’s definition at least. There is simply no license that can satisfy every so-called “Freedom”, not even the public domain (it’s not copyleft, therefore it somehow “doesn’t respect your freedom”).

“5.1 DISCLAIMER” and “5.2 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY”

Why are these sections not in all caps? Most other licenses (the GPL is an exception) like BSD, MIT, and even most proprietary EULAs have them in all caps (which has always slightly irritated me).

“6.1 The rights granted under this Licence do not imply or represent any transfer or assignment of intellectual property rights to the Licensee.”

Well, they just pissed off Stallman.

[1] http://www.ohwr.org/documents/64

#7 Posted by DrLoser on Jul 9, 2011 7:25 AM

IMGX64@JUL 8, 2011 10:35 PM:

Masochism? Good lateral thinking there — certainly, nothing else springs to mind.

Nobody has yet commented that this is CERN we’re talking about: a massive tax-funded research project dealing with high-energy physics. So, either a bunch of retards with PhDs in quantum physics and/or mechanical engineering are dicking around with irrelevant non-research things like device drivers, or we’re talking (essentially) about the support staff here.

On the assumption that it’s the latter, if I was in management, this sort of blatant time-wasting would cause me to get out my trusty P45s (or whatever they are in Switzerland).

#8 Posted by imgx64 on Jul 9, 2011 7:56 AM

OHL has little to do with device drivers. They target hobbyist electric engineers who want to share their designs (“Documentation” according to the text of the license) with the rest of the world. People who are interested in robotics, embedded controllers, Arduino, and the like. See the projects on their website:
http://www.ohwr.org/projects

I’m sure 99% of these projects will live in FPGAs forever, and will never be manufactured in any quantity.

#9 Posted by DrLoser on Jul 9, 2011 8:19 PM

And these little tits are patting themselves on the back for cribbing from a nonsensical “licence,” why?

Sorry, I don’t care whether or not a single bread-board makes it out into the wide, wide world off the back of this.

It’s still an offensive farkin waste of resources that could be better used elsewhere.

Which reminds me. I need to brew myself a nice mug of peppermint tea.

You must be signed in to leave comments.