A reprap derivative is the first FSF certified "hardware that respect your freedom"

[hackaday.com]

Wonders if the replicator 2 would pass that cert ?

---

Most of my technical comments should be correct, but is THIS one ?
Anyway, as a rule of thumb, always double check what people write.

Replicator 2 would at least have to open the gui it comes with.

> In addition to providing documentation, schematics, and design files, hardware certified as Respecting Your Freedom must meet much more stringent requirements.

I dont see that... AFAICT everything is about the software and software-facing electronics supporting free formats.. That kind-of makes sense coming from the Free Software Foundation!

Why the he... was this derivative choosen? The RepRap wiki is filled with literally hundreds of designs just as "open", a lot older and more hackable.

Also, a few years ago Richard Stallman explained how hardware can't be GPL'd. Do I have halluscinations now?

Looking at [www.fsf.org] , all this "certified" fuzz is apparently still about software only. This raises the question wether Lulzbot developed any software on it's own or wether it's just certified to respect the licenses of others (Arduino IDE, Marlin, Pronterface, etc.).

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Even though it is just about software, it is still a potentially useful certificate. It being just about software may make its name less fitting as time passes though...

As i also said in the reddit thread, i agree with Traumflug.. It does look too much like advertising.

In the reddit thread they said the kerning also wasn't right, and it isn't a particularly good logo.. Makes it looks a little clumsy. But more important to us is that there is no protection of open hardware designs in this thing.(what do you think about possibly mailing them?)

It's amazing how something relatively simple can be so misunderstood apparently within hours of it's announcement.

The hackaday is basically just wrong, it should be deleted and rewritten. This has nothing to do with hardware design or CAD software. The comments on the thread frankly make me despair for the future of humanity.

The reason Lulzbot got the award is simple : they applied for it. They probably read the relevant web page at the FSF [www.fsf.org] which I guess hackaday didn't.

For a bit of history:

The Licensing Compliance Officer from FSF contacted me about an earlier project I had worked on. I think it was Linux-Libre, but this is many months ago, so I forget which. I showed him what I was working on now (LulzBot) and he said, "that would make a great candidate for FSF certification!" (or somesuch). We've been working on it with them since Aptril or so. They don't do things quickly or lightly over at the FSF....

Traumflug, thanks for the sweet comments. I think the decade+ of supporting Free Software projects may have had something to do with it too. They know that I won't flip tomorrow. Plus I was willing to do the long hours of going through the contract with them and polishing it for subsequent certifications from others. The contract is eight pages, and unlike other contracts I've ever seen....

Also, as some have pointed out, this isn't a free/libre *hardware* certification, it is only for the software. There is no requirement that we publish the STLs, for example.

Happy hacking,

-Jeff

Quote
traumflug
a few years ago Richard Stallman explained how hardware can't be GPL'd. Do I have halluscinations now?

Here's what RMS wrote in the 1999 article linked above.

Quote
Richard Stallman
Circuits cannot be copylefted because they cannot be copyrighted. Definitions of circuits written in HDL (hardware definition languages) can be copylefted, but the copyleft covers only the expression of the definition, not the circuit itself. Likewise, a drawing or layout of a circuit can be copylefted, but this only covers the drawing or layout, not the circuit itself. What this means is that anyone can legally draw the same circuit topology in a different-looking way, or write a different HDL definition which produces the same circuit. Thus, the strength of copyleft when applied to circuits is limited. However, copylefting HDL definitions and printed circuit layouts may do some good nonetheless.