On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 03:07:45PM -0400, [email protected] wrote: > If you reinterpret what I write then tell on what grounds. I think lkcl's > reasons for not reverse engineering a mali are right. It is difficult to follow your argumentation. You write that you agree and disagree in the next sentence. >Weighing them up against the importance of getting a libre software gpu, I >reach the conclusion that the reverse engineering should be done. Before you plan a difficult crowd funding campaign and involve the FSF, please tell us your counter arguments to Lukes reasoning on a technical and ethical level. For example to the following points I am quoting from Lukes email reply to you in the thread about "firefly 3399 all source software disclosed?": - "take one of the "open gpus" or parts of them and use that." - "the sad fact of reverse-engineering: all that effort, with *no guarantee of success*.... just to get something that's years out-of-date." - "well, with the same money it would be possible to make our own libre processor, with enough extensions to be able to do 3D graphics *without* paying anyone a cent."
> There have been some remarks about the probability of a successful crowd > funding. I mentioned the numbers 50000 people, each paying 5euro. Notice on > this email list, people want to pay 5eu, if they get the software in > question. >It is safe to say more than 10 million people have gnulinux on their computer? >A major part of them know about the importance of libre software and a part of >them would want to act on it. I don't know if your numbers are correct but it seems important to me to point out that only a fraction of all GNU/Linux Users own a device with a mali GPU. Only a part of that group would in principle support such a campaign. Only some of the willing will actually fund the campaign... Pablo _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list [email protected] http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to [email protected]
