[Arm-netbook] Can someone explain me what this really means?

[Bill Kontos]

 I find it hard to believe, but here is some upstream code from
Qualcomm no less for the snapdragon 845 and the adreno 630 gpu too.

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2018-February/165668.html

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] pyra computer

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Christopher Havel
 wrote:

> I honestly don't know of a message archive,

 the specific message that i was referring to was only sent about 2 to
3 hours beforehand.  you should be able to find it easily by
re-reading only about 4 or 5 message back prior to your initial
objection... which resulted in an extension of this thread.  the
archives are where they always have been:
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm-netbook/

> In the meantime, I still think it would be unwise to ban Ron.

 i'm not "banning" him... unless he fails to understand and respect
Copyright Law and my obligation to follow - to the letter - the FRAND
procedures that are clearly documented in Trademark Law, specifically
those which are relevant to Certification Marks.

 i do not get any choice in this matter, chris.

l.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] pyra computer

[Philip Hands]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Hendrik Boom  wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:30:49PM -0500, Julie Marchant wrote:
>> 
>> Either that, or perhaps you are referring to some other law which is
>> neither copyright nor trademark, and spreading confusion by using two
>> wrong terms.
>
> In Canada, I've been old that standards marks are legally recognissed as 
> such and are different from either copyright or trademarks.  I do not 
> now how this is elsewhere.

IANAL, but I suspect that the confusion arises because Luke is
(presumably) the sole copyright holder on the canonical documentation
for the standard, so while there is a Certification Mark (which I think
is mostly dealt with in line with Trademark law) the thing that defines
what the Certification Mark actually means is a copyrighted work.

Of course, mixing those things up, and making assertions about being
forced to do things by Copyright Law when it was almost certainly meant
to be Trademark Law does not help.

On the other hand I'd say that Luke has free rein when it comes to
moderating or expelling people on this list, so the justification is
largely irrelevant ... although being even-handed about it is liable to
ensure a better atmosphere amongst those who remain.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,GERMANY
___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] pyra computer

[Julie Marchant]

On 2018年02月14日 06:45, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>   yes.  my understanding is that Trademarks and Cerfitication
> Marks, by being covered *by* Copyright Law, are in effect a sub-branch
> of Copyright.

No, copyright has nothing to do with them. Why do you think copyright
has anything to do with anything you are doing?

Copyright is a legal monopoly on the copying and distribution of a work.
It was originally invented in Britain as a form of censorship, where the
monarch would approve printers to print books in the form of a temporary
monopoly. The current incarnation of copyright exists with the
justification of encouraging the creation of works, e.g. books. It has
nothing whatsoever to do with names or certifications. All that
documentation could be in the public domain and it would make absolutely
no difference. Heck, a lot of corporate logos are in the public domain;
you can't copyright fonts, and logos like that of SONY are nothing but
printed text, meaning they can't be copyrighted.

IANAL, of course.

>  the key thing is that i am *required* to be FRAND (fair, reasonable
> and non-discriminatory).  if the entity known as "ronwirring" were
> just simply told to bugger off, he could perfectly reasonably claim,
> under trademark / certification mark / copyright law (whichever it is)
> that he had been "discriminated against" by me, the (copyright) owner
> of the EOMA68 Certification Mark.
That's an issue with patent licensing, yet another completely different
issue you're lumping together with this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing

But let's assume that certification marks don't allow you to
discriminate against people in relation to it. That would be the
granting of certification. Have you threatened to deny certification
arbitrarily? No? Good. No one has to be a member of a random mailing
list to get certification for a product.

Still not a lawyer, still not legal advice, of course.

-- 
Julie Marchant
https://onpon4.github.io

Protect your emails with GnuPG:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] pyra computer

[Julie Marchant]

On 2018年02月14日 11:27, Louis Pearson wrote:
> It occurs to me that Luke is a citizen of the UK, and so may not be
> using US law.

Yes, but I see no reason to believe that the U.K. government would
unreasonably intertwine these completely unrelated laws together in the
way that Luke suggests.

Of course, we do have to know exactly what we are talking about to
discuss this properly.

-- 
Julie Marchant
https://onpon4.github.io

Protect your emails with GnuPG:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] pyra computer

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Philip Hands  wrote:

> IANAL, but I suspect that the confusion arises because Luke is
> (presumably) the sole copyright holder on the canonical documentation
> for the standard, so while there is a Certification Mark (which I think
> is mostly dealt with in line with Trademark law) the thing that defines
> what the Certification Mark actually means is a copyrighted work.

  yes.  my understanding is that Trademarks and Cerfitication
Marks, by being covered *by* Copyright Law, are in effect a sub-branch
of Copyright.

> On the other hand I'd say that Luke has free rein when it comes to
> moderating or expelling people on this list, so the justification is
> largely irrelevant ... although being even-handed about it is liable to
> ensure a better atmosphere amongst those who remain.

 the key thing is that i am *required* to be FRAND (fair, reasonable
and non-discriminatory).  if the entity known as "ronwirring" were
just simply told to bugger off, he could perfectly reasonably claim,
under trademark / certification mark / copyright law (whichever it is)
that he had been "discriminated against" by me, the (copyright) owner
of the EOMA68 Certification Mark.

 thus i *may* not either:

 (a) be nice and let people just do whatever they like

 (b) be heavy-handed and indiscriminately expel people from the list
just because they're being an arse.

the way round this is to ask the perfectly reasonable question, "are
you going to follow the rules" and if the response is either "no" or
there *is* no response... *then* i believe that my obligations have
been met and i can then drop a shit-metric ton of bricks on their
head.  and not before then.

 complicated and not a lot of fun!

 anybody else wants this responsibility they're more than bloody well
welcome to it.

l.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] pyra computer

[Louis Pearson]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Julie Marchant  wrote:

> On 2018年02月14日 06:45, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> >   yes.  my understanding is that Trademarks and Cerfitication
> > Marks, by being covered *by* Copyright Law, are in effect a sub-branch
> > of Copyright.
>
> No, copyright has nothing to do with them. Why do you think copyright
> has anything to do with anything you are doing?
>
> Copyright is a legal monopoly on the copying and distribution of a work.
> It was originally invented in Britain as a form of censorship, where the
> monarch would approve printers to print books in the form of a temporary
> monopoly. The current incarnation of copyright exists with the
> justification of encouraging the creation of works, e.g. books. It has
> nothing whatsoever to do with names or certifications. All that
> documentation could be in the public domain and it would make absolutely
> no difference. Heck, a lot of corporate logos are in the public domain;
> you can't copyright fonts, and logos like that of SONY are nothing but
> printed text, meaning they can't be copyrighted.
>
> IANAL, of course.
>
> >  the key thing is that i am *required* to be FRAND (fair, reasonable
> > and non-discriminatory).  if the entity known as "ronwirring" were
> > just simply told to bugger off, he could perfectly reasonably claim,
> > under trademark / certification mark / copyright law (whichever it is)
> > that he had been "discriminated against" by me, the (copyright) owner
> > of the EOMA68 Certification Mark.
> That's an issue with patent licensing, yet another completely different
> issue you're lumping together with this.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing
>
> But let's assume that certification marks don't allow you to
> discriminate against people in relation to it. That would be the
> granting of certification. Have you threatened to deny certification
> arbitrarily? No? Good. No one has to be a member of a random mailing
> list to get certification for a product.
>
> Still not a lawyer, still not legal advice, of course.
>
> --
> Julie Marchant
> https://onpon4.github.io
>
> Protect your emails with GnuPG:
> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org
>
> ___
> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
> Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
>
It occurs to me that Luke is a citizen of the UK, and so may not be
using US law. The question is which law is he using? That could
change things quite a bit.

(Which reminds me that outside of the US, giving legal advice is
allowed, even if you aren't a lawyer)
___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] pyra computer

[Christopher Havel]

Having reviewed the message in question (as near as I can determine... I
believe it to be Ron's email, 11 Feb 2016 at 12:09pm) I still see no
problems posed by what Ron is doing or saying.

Luke, I notice that you have not directly responded to any of the ongoing
commentary. I would invite you to speak up again and address what has been
said since your last message.
___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] pyra computer

[Jean Flamelle]

On 2/13/18, Julie Marchant  wrote:
> On 2018年02月13日 15:38, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> he's calling into question my authority and the right as a Copyright
>> Holder of the word - and standard - "EOMA68", chris.  that's very very
>> serious.  and also publicly recorded.  you can double-check that by
>> re-reading the messages.
>>
>>  i am REQUIRED to respond to that - by explicitly asserting that i AM
>> the sole exclusive Copyright Holder of EOMA68 and that i AM the sole
>> exclusive authority over the EOMA68 Standard, and that i cannot
>> tolerate people claiming that they are blithely and arbitrarily
>> permitted to ignore my authority under Copyright Law.
>
> Luke, I hope you don't find this to be pedantic, but if you do, I would
> point out that RMS is very vocal about this point.
>
> Copyright and trademark law are *not* the same thing. You can't hold a
> copyright on a name, only a trademark. This is an important distinction
> because the way copyright and trademark laws operate is not the same.
>
> As far as being "required to respond", I assume you are referring to the
> possibility of genericide of a trademark, when you lose a trademark
> because you fail to inform the public how it is properly used, causing
> it to be used to mean something more generic, e.g. if people started
> calling SEGA video games "Nintendos". This has nothing to do with
> "liability". It just has to do with whether or not a particular name can
> still be trademarked.
>
> Either that, or perhaps you are referring to some other law which is
> neither copyright nor trademark, and spreading confusion by using two
> wrong terms.
>
> Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and none of this is legal advice.
>

So this is a pretty solid reference:
https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1306.html

Basically the mark itself is currently ambiguous, so the only known
attributes are the text EOMA68. Until an actual mark is finalized,
EOMA68, in generic font, is the mark.

This isn't a matter of "genericide" but rather certified versus uncertified.
How is the distinction made?
Does one just say this is an EOMA68 housing/card?
Or, do they say they have EOMA68 certification?
The standard usage Luke has maintained is to say something is EOMA68,
so, if you're certified, you don't have to say you're certified. This
means if you see the word EOMA68 that it is strictly certified.

The name of the card is the Libre Tea, so that's what an hobbyist
should say they are using.
If a card is plugged into an uncertified housing, that card should no
longer fits the criteria for the certification, assuming the standard
is worded as it should be.

Why so strict?
Luke, wouldn't have to be strict if the certification mark read
"certified EOMA68", however, the certification mark is simply
"EOMA68", which tactically internationalizes the mark. This way it can
be the same across countries with different languages and, anyone able
to read those letters can trust the certification, regardless of if
they can read the rest of the package.

Say you're Chinese, if you see "EOMA-like" on a package then you might
not understand the word like and assume wrongly that the card is
EOMA68 certified. Luke is liable for that confusion, because, as a
part of the standard, Luke could-have-and-chose-not-to make rules
about what countries EOMA68 cards are allowed to be sold in and about
what languages labels must be printed in.

So let's say that someone wants to be extra-ecological and not use any
packaging, simply having EOMA68 engraved on the card demonstrated
certification. If someone resells damaged cards as new, certification
mark violation could be a pathway to restitution where there aren't
very strong purchaser protection laws. Luke could even define rules
for what to disclose about the assurance checks done when reselling a
used card. Depending on the jurisdiction, resellers would possibly
have to cover or destroy the mark, if they violated any of those
rules.

A standard could become very intrusive, if you think about it, but
only to protect principles. No matter how intrusive, it has to be
FRAND or else courts will order it be dissolved.

If someone is documenting their hobby projects, certifications
shouldn't be mentioned and any certification marks should be covered
in any images or videos. US law probably doesn't require this and
protects their citizens from needing to do this, however Luke may then
be required by the laws of other countries to request the content be
geo-restricted and pursue the liability of the hosting website if the
request isn't honored.
The world of international incorporation is fucking complicated.

Disclaimer: [what Julie said^]

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] pyra computer

[Jean Flamelle]

It is also important to note that for all intensive an diy project
could receive a certification.

Also if you read the first line of that wikipedia article:

"Reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms, also known as fair,
reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, denote a voluntary
licensing commitment that standards organizations often request from
the owner of an intellectual property right (usually a patent) that
is, or may become, essential to practice a technical standard."

Reading between the lines, the point of the "intellectual property" is
that it is the leverage has over companies. Without patents EOMA is
only a word and EOMA has no legal authority to stop imitators from
just using a slightly different word. With a patent however, a
standards organization can legally issue a cease-and-desist order.

So this brings up the tough question of how can the EOMA standard
exert any authority without patents?

Also what will motivate companies to hire Luke as a consultant? That's
important too, am I wrong?

Community support through donations wins Luke a certain degree of
independence, so Luke won't have to charge many people consultation
fees and can give advice more-solely based on merit. Here's an
interesting question though: what motivates people to donate and will
that scale as more companies gain interest causing Luke to inevitably
need to train people to act as consultants on behalf of the EOMA
project? My hope is, yes.

One way to have leverage is for EOMA to become so popular, companies
without the mark are actively avoided by a significant fraction of the
population in given places. This is not to be underestimated, because
food certifications have demonstrated a lot of success with this
strategy.

However we should also consider:
The patent system isn't necessarily broken, if we consider the rampant
abuse to be the result of scammers. We could see copyleft "public
commons" patents which are licensed openly to the public so long as
certain rules pertaining to certain morals are followed. Like with GPL
violations, any member of the public should be able to make a lawsuit
against a violator of these rules.

With that possibility in mind, abuse could get worse with copyleft
principles, because rules could be stupid or misguided. FRAND already
comes into play with that, so there is already an appeals mechanism in
place against abusive copyleft or open patent licenses (if I
understand correctly). Perhaps patent courts could expand to judge as
fair or unfair the rules of an open patent license. Then such
standards organizations could form around protecting people and
certain morals, by prosecuting violators of these open patents.
Ultimately this could easily turn into an extortion racket with people
living off of legal and consultation fees. Such an organization should
live solely on donations and only conduct legal cases pro-bono.

This is were things get weird.

Aren't you asking, "wait if you just implied we should consider living
off of consultation and legal fees immoral extortion, why are you
defending patents as a form of leverage used by companies who would be
able to do that extortion.. you look like you're contradicting
yourself up and down"?

Well, the fact remains the public benefits if the public shares the
morals being protected. Legal cases write lots of documentation which
the public might like to read, if well written. The more injustice an
organization fights this way then the more journalism they have
necessarily done and the more journalistic documents they can easily
publish.
This engineers a service that gratifies donors and will immediately
stop if the donations also stop, motivating people not to be selfish.

EOMA standards organizations can also thoroughly document (through
transcripts, or audio or video journalism) what they were consulted
about and the advice given, so that it becomes easily apparent if they
were warning a company that they were consulting for about potential
violations or if they instead ever used consultation fees as a mode of
extortion.

This mailing list shows EOMA off to a great start in terms open-ness
and thorough journalistic documentation of everything going on. I
fully support Luke and this project, and this is why I again draw
connections between this project and the baby giant company Cloud
Imperium Games, for their record-breakingly thorough self-journalism.

I know they aren't FLOSS, but we need to be like them.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] pyra computer

[Christopher Havel]

Quick post from phone, in my way to bed. Please excuse top-posting and
occasional typos, if present.

I have a proposal for Luke that I think would solve this problem instantly.

Let there be two "levels" of EOMA68. "EOMA68" by itself can be construed
from now on to mean "compatible with the standard in some reasonable way".
Then, /with a separate and distinct but visually similar/ logo - "EOMA68
Certified", which is exactly that.

Anything that can accept an EOMA68 CPU Card (Luke - is that still the right
term for the card with the guts?) is at least EOMA68. That's your
eBay-and-AliExpress bin, as well as where the hobbyists lurk, and everyone
already knows that junk to be questionable at best, so we take advantage of
that and use it for our own purposes.

HOWEVER, we simultaneously make sure that everyone /also/ knows that the
'good stuff' is EOMA68-Certified. If it's not -Certified, then it's not
trustworthy. Will it work? Maybe. We won't guarantee anything and we won't
warranty anything that isn't -Certified. In fact, if we want to be paranoid
and iron fisted - stick something in the license that voids all warranties
if an EOMA68-Certified device is connected to an EOMA68 non-certified
device. That's rude as heck, IMNSHO, but it does the job.

Of course, that's the so called 'Freemium' way of doing things - I friggin
hate 'freemium', it's usually incredibly dishonest - but, hey, maybe we can
do it right.

What say you, Luke? Float it or sink it... ow, my thumbs... g'nite ya'll...

On Feb 15, 2018 12:32 AM, "Jean Flamelle"  wrote:

> It is also important to note that for all intensive an diy project
> could receive a certification.
>
> Also if you read the first line of that wikipedia article:
>
> "Reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms, also known as fair,
> reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, denote a voluntary
> licensing commitment that standards organizations often request from
> the owner of an intellectual property right (usually a patent) that
> is, or may become, essential to practice a technical standard."
>
> Reading between the lines, the point of the "intellectual property" is
> that it is the leverage has over companies. Without patents EOMA is
> only a word and EOMA has no legal authority to stop imitators from
> just using a slightly different word. With a patent however, a
> standards organization can legally issue a cease-and-desist order.
>
> So this brings up the tough question of how can the EOMA standard
> exert any authority without patents?
>
> Also what will motivate companies to hire Luke as a consultant? That's
> important too, am I wrong?
>
> Community support through donations wins Luke a certain degree of
> independence, so Luke won't have to charge many people consultation
> fees and can give advice more-solely based on merit. Here's an
> interesting question though: what motivates people to donate and will
> that scale as more companies gain interest causing Luke to inevitably
> need to train people to act as consultants on behalf of the EOMA
> project? My hope is, yes.
>
> One way to have leverage is for EOMA to become so popular, companies
> without the mark are actively avoided by a significant fraction of the
> population in given places. This is not to be underestimated, because
> food certifications have demonstrated a lot of success with this
> strategy.
>
> However we should also consider:
> The patent system isn't necessarily broken, if we consider the rampant
> abuse to be the result of scammers. We could see copyleft "public
> commons" patents which are licensed openly to the public so long as
> certain rules pertaining to certain morals are followed. Like with GPL
> violations, any member of the public should be able to make a lawsuit
> against a violator of these rules.
>
> With that possibility in mind, abuse could get worse with copyleft
> principles, because rules could be stupid or misguided. FRAND already
> comes into play with that, so there is already an appeals mechanism in
> place against abusive copyleft or open patent licenses (if I
> understand correctly). Perhaps patent courts could expand to judge as
> fair or unfair the rules of an open patent license. Then such
> standards organizations could form around protecting people and
> certain morals, by prosecuting violators of these open patents.
> Ultimately this could easily turn into an extortion racket with people
> living off of legal and consultation fees. Such an organization should
> live solely on donations and only conduct legal cases pro-bono.
>
> This is were things get weird.
>
> Aren't you asking, "wait if you just implied we should consider living
> off of consultation and legal fees immoral extortion, why are you
> defending patents as a form of leverage used by companies who would be
> able to do that extortion.. you look like you're contradicting
> yourself up and down"?
>
> Well, the fact remains the public benefits if the public shares