On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 4:34 AM, Werner Almesberger <[email protected]> wrote: > JDH services wrote: >> BEFORE you force >> everyone to write their software for that proprietary architectures. > > Huh ? You can treat this rather lean firmware pretty much like a > black box if you don't want to touch the AVR.
Go read the messages with the subject: How to Blow $100 Million http://lists.en.qi-hardware.com/pipermail/discussion/2010-September/subject.html > You're also free to > use a different microcontroller to communicate with the transceiver. And you are free to shove your five atusb version 20110123 PCBs up you ass if you want. Or leave if you want. You are then one talking about replacing a patent free instruction set with a freshly patented one. on a mailing list of a project dedicated to making hardware with 100% to free(as in speech, not beer) hardware down to the last transistor. Qi-Hardware, and the nanonote project in particular, isn't about making merely 'open source' hardware. it is about make hardware that is copyleft down to the last transistor. As was said when it was suggested to change the CPU in the MistyMilk to one with a more GPL friendly licence. They don't want to do that because it would brake compatibly with the current Mistymilk firmware programs and people are too lazy to port them a new architecture. On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Sam Geeraerts <[email protected]> wrote: > Ron K. Jeffries schreef: <snip> >> Out of necessity, Nanonote uses a proprietary >> SOC, a step on the path to completely copyleft >> FPGA or ASIC system on chip. > > It's pretty clear what the Qi Hardware community's take is on freedom > with regards to hardware: the goal is to have devices of which the > design is fully copyleft, down to the last transistor. To get there, > community members are taking the pragmatic approach, e.g. use a > proprietary SOC and get a best-effort-freedom device out now rather than > spend 20 years developing a device that's 15 years behind everyone else. > This makes perfect sense and is comparable to what RMS did to get GNU > off the ground. > > Despite being focused on hardware, Qi HW can't (and doesn't) ignore > software. That's because probably all devices under the Qi HW umbrella > (will) run some form of software, but also because the community makes > less of a distinction (or at least a different one) between hardware and > software than, say, the FSF (e.g. firmware burnt into chip). I believe > Qi HW's mission was (partly) described as: taking freedom further. So > far I'm still unsure about how far and in what direction the community > wants to take that freedom in the software dimension. > > What (IMO) has been established so far: > - No distribution of software with a high patent lawsuit risk. > - Only freely licensed software pre-installed and in the package repository. > - All hardware should eventually be developed using only free software. > > Open issue: is it OK to encourage users of the device to use non-free > software? > > Seeing how important having and keeping freedom is to this community > (from the explicit choice of the copyleft model for the hardware), I > think the answer is: No. Most people who buy this hardware are > interested in freedom and would want to trust the software that comes > with it not to direct them to non-free hardware or software. Providing > ready access to (free) software of which the only purpose is to run > non-free software would violate that trust. > >> Open, Libre hardware is fabulous. But let's >> allow users to employ the hardware any >> way they choose to. >> >> ~That~ is freedom. ;) > > I'm not saying that the hardware or software should be limited so that > users can't use non-free hardware or software with it. I'm saying that > if they want to do that they should explicitly choose to do so > themselves instead of getting it handed to them on a silver platter. I have Childhood Disintegrative Disorder and I am a Stateless Person CDD has some similarity to autism, and is sometimes considered a low-functioning form of it, but an apparent period of fairly normal development is often noted before a regression in skills or a series of regressions in skills. Many children are already somewhat delayed when the illness becomes apparent, but these delays are not always obvious in young children. The age at which this regression can occur varies, and can be from age 2-10 with the definition of this onset depending largely on opinion. Regression can be very sudden, and the child may even voice concern about what is happening, much to the parent's surprise. Some children describe or appear to be reacting to hallucinations, but the most obvious symptom is that skills apparently attained are lost. No one gives a damn about helping me as I have such a poor prognosis. Wolfgang Spraul is the only person in the past 10 years that has bother to even try to help with out me first having to bribe them. You know what I get to that effort? all anyone tells me "Well your problem is to big for me to help you with" I am so sick and tired are having to constantly beg and plead for people to treat me as if I where an actual human being. I have a constant struggle keeping my mind from deteriorating. I do not have enough energy to waste in a futile attempt to appease your narcissistic megalomania > > For better or worse, AVR is quite popular in the DIY world, so using Then go get the fuck out of the Qi-hardware world and go to the DIY world if you like the DIY world > one of these chips should enable more people to make experiments > with the atusb firmware, should they be inclined to do so. As it has be stated several times in the past. Qi isn't "open source" that is sole interested in getting people to use hardware that they can play with the source code. Qi is about making a completely self-sufficient copyleft hardware-software ecosystem. Trading Copyleftness for a larger user base is against the mission of Qi-Hardware. Qi-Hardware isn't about making the largest user base. it is about making a user base that doesn't require the use of non copyleft IP. > > The whole point is to avoid introducing yet another platform with > all the dependencies and obstacles this brings. That Is what I told you! 8051 is much one of the best supported CPU's by by the COPYLEFT hard/software user base. 8051 is so old that it's 8051 architecture no longer covered by IP. That is why there is so many 8051 compatible designs out there. Not only is it old it is considered quaint so we don't have to worry about patent trolls. Isn't AVR one of Atmel's crown jewels? I don't think they will be happy about us releasing a AVR compatible CPU design. Sincerely, Panthera Tigris Altaica _______________________________________________ Qi Hardware Discussion List Mail to list (members only): [email protected] Subscribe or Unsubscribe: http://lists.en.qi-hardware.com/mailman/listinfo/discussion
