I'm interested if anyone has any insight into why there is a such a push for "Free" software (for example by the FSF, Richard Stallman), but not also "Free" hardware.
In the DIY electronics community, when someone suggests building an open/free professional tool (e.g. oscillscope, power supply, etc.), everyone responds "you're crazy, it would be too expensive, you'll never beat the cheap Chinese supplies (like Rigol) on price". Right next door, you'll see people who go to insane lengths to study and after-market hack the very same hardware. Hacks that would be both massively easier and more accessible if the hardware was open. (I'm thinking in particular of a thread on EEVBlog where a guy completely desoldered and resoldered (!) his Rigol oscilloscope to reverse engineer the front end.) I think the Novena is an awesome counter-example to this argument and I hope more people take on projects like this. (I would if I had the skillz.)
From the linked article: "Because copying hardware is so hard, the question of whether we're allowed to do it is not vitally important. I see no social imperative for free hardware designs like the imperative for free software. Freedom to copy software is an important right because it is easy now--any computer user can do it. Freedom to copy hardware is not as important, because copying hardware is hard to do. Present-day chip and board fabrication technology resembles the printing press. Copying hardware is as difficult as copying books was in the age of the printing press, or more so. So the ethical issue of copying hardware is more like the ethical issue of copying books 50 years ago, than like the issue of copying software today."
(But I'd say the idea of free/libre software certainly predates even the GNU manifesto.)