On 10/09/2013 08:23 PM, Bob Ham wrote:
And the next day, when you've found an old definition that accords
with your view, suddenly that one definition would have obviated any
discussion.
The meaning of the words are defined by the communities that use it and
different communities can have different understandings. And license
definitions don't mean much until people in general have accepted it.
You are merely trying to impose your interpretation on other people.
For me, the meaning of open hardware was defined by the introduction of
the IBM PC (which did not include open source schematics). This is the
meaning I know about and I believe it is still the reference most people
have.
It is laudable to have more hardware open and it would be "nice" if
goldelico would release the schematics in source. But I don't see them
has having such obligation neither I see any inconsistence in their
actions or words. Goldelico has certainly contributed to the cause of
open hardware and you are merely trying to put shame on them by
rhetorical manipulation to force them to do something they obviously
don't have to. It is your actions I don't find laudable. ANd causing a
lot of wasted energy.
Fernando Martins
_______________________________________________
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community