It would probably help if RMS understood a little about how inventors of hardware circuitry make a living instead of posting from a position of almost complete ignorance.
Circuit topologies certainly can be patented. "Copyright" is an irrelevant concept here. The IP doesn't reside in a copyable drawing or shape, but in the commercial value of the topology.
What matters isn't the graphical or notional arrangement of the components, but the fact that the arrangement provides a novel and unique solution to a specific problem and/or implements a significant new capability.
Licensees can then pay for the right to use the topology in their own products.
If you want to make your topology free, you can simply release it into the public domain. Prior art rules will then make it very hard to patent.
The various CC/GPL licenses make little or no sense in this context, because most hardware topologies aren't directly copyable without modification and tuning.
Besides, a lot of designs already use standard topologies. There's no patent on many standard digital and analog design elements because they're already in the public domain.
Some of them have been in the public domain for decades.
Either you didn't read the article, or you are deliberately knocking down straw men for a seemingly bizarre reason.
RMS laid out EXACTLY the points you've described; that hardware & circuits can be patented, but the circuit topology cannot be copyrighted.
I think the idea that Dr. Stallman is writing about is a framework for sharing designs and collaborating that has the potential to grow into a thriving free hardware ecosystem.
It seems you may feel threatened by such a development, but for the reasons you outlined, it may not be a threat. I suppose however that having public repositories of innovative hardware designs could make it harder to obtain patents if it turns out that prior art was posted and timestamped on the Internet.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
Did you read the original article? There is specifically discussion about how copyright cannot protect the actual topology.
The point is not to remove profitability from hardware. The point is for hardware you purchase to include the full schematic and source used to create that hardware, so that you can easily modify it and create a derivative work if you wish to.
Many, many digital designs do not include high value patented topologies, but are simply complex interconnections of many separate ICs. You can always choose a license without a patent grant too, if you want.
I think that's the opposite of what the GP is saying. The thesis seems to be that hardware is patentable because what matters is not the schematic/topology, but the physically manufactured circuit board, whereas in software you can directly copy an algorithm. It's the "you wouldn't download a car" differentiation.
Circuit topologies certainly can be patented. "Copyright" is an irrelevant concept here. The IP doesn't reside in a copyable drawing or shape, but in the commercial value of the topology.
What matters isn't the graphical or notional arrangement of the components, but the fact that the arrangement provides a novel and unique solution to a specific problem and/or implements a significant new capability.
Licensees can then pay for the right to use the topology in their own products.
If you want to make your topology free, you can simply release it into the public domain. Prior art rules will then make it very hard to patent.
The various CC/GPL licenses make little or no sense in this context, because most hardware topologies aren't directly copyable without modification and tuning.
Besides, a lot of designs already use standard topologies. There's no patent on many standard digital and analog design elements because they're already in the public domain.
Some of them have been in the public domain for decades.