[Arm-netbook] need help! getting a bit overwhelmed on lists.oshwa.org

[Xavi Drudis Ferran]

El Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 05:40:28PM +0200, Elena ``of Valhalla'' deia:
> > So a tivoized device may not hide any
> > information or knowledge but it may prevent you from changing the
> > representation that the device will use. It won't prevent you from 
> > working freely with the knowledge, "just" with the device.
> 
> Well, a tivoized device will probably allow me to work freely with some
> of the information, but not other (the ones involved with preventing you
> access to the device itself, for one thing)
>

No, I don't know what happened historically, but it is theoretically
possible to envision a signature check system in some inalterable ROM
that enforces tivoization, is published and even freely licensed, but
yet it prevents you to exercise your freedoms on the device.

For me that would be the hardware preventing your free use of the
device.  For you it might be the software, but the point is you won't
be able to use the device as you should be able, even if you could
change the signature check system and build another device that lets
you do it.

> 
> Yes, software is information/knowledge, not necessarily *free*

Software could be free and secret (if everyone involved wants to keep
it secret including all users) but that extreme is beside the point.

> knowledge, but in my definition it's stuff for which it is reasonable to
> ask the question "is it free?"
> 

And hardware can't be free ? You mean because it can't be replicated ?

> In theory, I think that it could be reached, but I'm not sure if the
> market forces will ever allow it.
> 
> I would be happy even to see constant improvements, even if the actual
> aim wasn't reached in my lifetime, so yes, there is a bit of utopy in
> it.
>

Ok
 
> well, no, I would stop at the process phase, described in a way that can
> be reproduced, including the building of relevant tools, even if in
> practice some of this information is going to be too expensive for most
> people to actually use (and, more importantly, there are serious
> practical issues with bootstrapping the equipement required to do so).
>

I see. So yes, achievable in theory. 
 
> 
> under my definition, you could say that "free hardware" is hardware for
> which the "design software" is free.

In mine too. The design of the hardware is modifiable, so it is
software.  I think the difference is that when I say "free software
for this computer" I don't include hardware designs, when I say "free
hardware" I mean hardware for which there are free designs.