On: The Free Software Foundation is even more relevant...

[pjc50]

There are some efforts (e.g. opencores), but as discussed here: http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/61873/why-is-... , and the famous Arduino is "open".

The "freedom to redistribute copies" and "freedom to modify" aspects of Free software really don't translate well to hardware. There is work and cost associated with copying a board, and much more associated with copying an ASIC (modified or otherwise). It's simply not going to be within the reach of the average user in the forseeable future.

Another factor is rapid obsolescence. Some of the open UNIX software is thirty years old; GCC is about 25 years old. Open hardware will generally have a shorter time before it starts looking horribly obsolete. This is especially true of all the things that people really want to be open: processors, graphics hardware, wireless interfaces.

(You could have an open replacement for e.g. the 555 or LM741, which would be more timeless, but what would be the point? How would it differ materially from the current ones?)

There is certainly scope for "community" hardware development, but that depends on having a stable, sensible community that can agree what it wants and is willing to pay for. Again, requires a lot of work.

[agumonkey → pjc50]

I guess we'll have to wait for not too expensive, electricity efficient and fast FPGAs.

[pjc50 → agumonkey]

By the nature of their technology, any FPGA will always be more expensive and energy hungry than the inflexible ASIC counterpart. No silver bullet.

What's more likely is interesting SoCs with partially reconfigurable analog blocks and accessible graphics co-processors.

[agumonkey → pjc50]

I understand that the flexibility of FPGA has a great cost, but with them we might have a better chance to ensure what the processor is actually doing.

I like your idea.