Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)
On Thu, 2013-10-03 at 21:32 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
Am 03.10.2013 um 20:09 schrieb Bob Ham:
I would note that the GTA04 is not a Free Hardware project.
Yes that is correct. It is not Free Hardware in the strict FSF definition
I don't think FSF has a definition of Free Hardware. Possibly we're
ascribing different meanings to the phrase. I'm using Free Hardware
to refer to free or libre hardware with the four freedoms, as described
by the (unfortunately named) Open Source Hardware and Design Alliance:
http://www.ohanda.org/
All of them have been as open as it could be practically done at the moment
when some design decisions had to be made.
You've previously said that the reason you refuse to release the
hardware source files, making the device more open, is because you
expect money in return. Are you now saying restricting access to the
hardware source files is somehow a design decision?
--
Bob Ham r...@settrans.net
for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)
On Fri 04 October 2013 19:48:19 Bob Ham wrote: You've previously said that the reason you refuse to release the hardware source files, making the device more open, is because you expect money in return. Are you now saying restricting access to the hardware source files is somehow a design decision? Refuse? RESTRICTING access? Honestly guys, what are you thinking we are doing here? Does Nikolaus owe you something (more) since he already gave you more than anybody else usually does? This is a project as open as defined by the author, thus everything that's not open/free is not open/free, and everything offered to the community as CCbyCA or whatever is a gift to community, with no liabilities whatsoever arising from that for the one donating it. Period. End of discussion. Do we have to feel bad about the decision not to disclose project files? Definitely NOT! May you _ask_ why they don't get disclosed? Sure. But don't _question_ the answer you get, and don't even complain when you get no answer at all either. You're not entitled to anything. NOBODY needs project files to use this product and make the most of it, in any way you like. You get schematics and component placement and technical manual and datasheets. And on reasonable request GolDeliCo probably will even hand out layout as a number of pdf files, so you could check whether it's possible to drill a hole at pos X-Y into PCB. That's it. Be happy or get over it. jOERG -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments (alas the above page got scrapped due to resignation(!!), so here some supplementary links:) http://www.georgedillon.com/web/html_email_is_evil.shtml http://www.nonhtmlmail.org/campaign.html http://www.georgedillon.com/web/html_email_is_evil_still.shtml http://www.gerstbach.at/2004/ascii/ (German) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)
Am 04.10.2013 um 19:48 schrieb Bob Ham: On Thu, 2013-10-03 at 21:32 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: Am 03.10.2013 um 20:09 schrieb Bob Ham: I would note that the GTA04 is not a Free Hardware project. Yes that is correct. It is not Free Hardware in the strict FSF definition I don't think FSF has a definition of Free Hardware. Possibly we're ascribing different meanings to the phrase. Yes they have one and even do a certification (which would not be possible with a definition): http://www.fsf.org/news/endorsement-criteria http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Hardware/Certification_criteria I'm using Free Hardware to refer to free or libre hardware with the four freedoms, as described by the (unfortunately named) Open Source Hardware and Design Alliance: http://www.ohanda.org/ All of them have been as open as it could be practically done at the moment when some design decisions had to be made. You've previously said that the reason you refuse to release the hardware source files, making the device more open, is because you expect money in return. Are you now saying restricting access to the hardware source files is somehow a design decision? ??? I already told you that the hardware source files are open and public. Just not in the format you would like to see them but you are free to convert them. Nobody is taking this freedom from you... Here I am referring to the typical discussion about binary blobs and firmware drivers - because we decide(d) to use chips we can buy. E.g. the WLAN chip. -- hns ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)
On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 20:16 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
Am 04.10.2013 um 19:48 schrieb Bob Ham:
I don't think FSF has a definition of Free Hardware. Possibly we're
ascribing different meanings to the phrase.
Yes they have one and even do a certification (which would not be
possible with a definition):
http://www.fsf.org/news/endorsement-criteria
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Hardware/Certification_criteria
They don't use the term Free Hardware to describe what they're
endorsing.
I'm using Free Hardware
to refer to free or libre hardware with the four freedoms, as described
by the (unfortunately named) Open Source Hardware and Design Alliance:
http://www.ohanda.org/
All of them have been as open as it could be practically done at the moment
when some design decisions had to be made.
You've previously said that the reason you refuse to release the
hardware source files, making the device more open, is because you
expect money in return. Are you now saying restricting access to the
hardware source files is somehow a design decision?
???
I already told you that the hardware source files are open and public.
The source files are not public. The only thing that is public is a PDF
file containing bitmap images generated from other (Eagle?) source
files. The other source files themselves are not available.
I don't understand how you can maintain that the source files are
public.
Just not in the format you would like to see them but you are free to
convert them.
You don't seem to understand that the difference in format is
critical. It is the difference that prevents the GTA04 being described
as free hardware.
By your logic, all binary software executables are open because the
format can be converted into assembler. While it may be true that one
can disassemble binaries and modify the resulting assembler, this is not
what we're referring to by the phrase free software.
Similarly, the GTA04 is not free hardware.
And by the way, I looked into your idea of scanning PCB schematics.
It's bogus. I tried to see whether any suitable software was available
but here's what I found instead:
there is no direct way to translate pure graphical data to an
intelligent schematic, EDA schematics contain a lot of intelligent
information that simply is not available on a sheet of paper
http://www.edaboard.com/thread8258.html
No, nothing like that exists. ... Such a tool would be difficult to
create, and impossible to realistically support considering the
multitude of ways even a single IC could be represented. ... In short,
it's unrealistic.
http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/66432/any-research-to-turn-schematics-as-a-picture-into-a-simulation
Here I am referring to the typical discussion about binary blobs and
firmware drivers - because we decide(d) to use chips we can buy.
You're obviously using the phrase free hardware to mean hardware that
can run with entirely free software. This seems to be non-normal usage.
For example, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_Freedom_Day
--
Bob Ham r...@settrans.net
for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: I already told you that the hardware source files are open and public. I agree with Bob Ham on this. The source files are not public and even the PDFs are not open, they are licensed under a non-commercial license (CC-BY-NC-SA). Even the BeagleBone Black people are able to release some sort of hardware source files: https://github.com/CircuitCo/-BeagleBone-Black-RevA5/ -- bye, pabs http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/User:PaulWise ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)
Am 04.10.2013 um 21:26 schrieb Bob Ham: On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 20:16 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: Am 04.10.2013 um 19:48 schrieb Bob Ham: I don't think FSF has a definition of Free Hardware. Possibly we're ascribing different meanings to the phrase. Yes they have one and even do a certification (which would not be possible with a definition): http://www.fsf.org/news/endorsement-criteria http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Hardware/Certification_criteria They don't use the term Free Hardware to describe what they're endorsing. Yes, you are right. I'm using Free Hardware to refer to free or libre hardware with the four freedoms, as described by the (unfortunately named) Open Source Hardware and Design Alliance: http://www.ohanda.org/ All of them have been as open as it could be practically done at the moment when some design decisions had to be made. You've previously said that the reason you refuse to release the hardware source files, making the device more open, is because you expect money in return. Are you now saying restricting access to the hardware source files is somehow a design decision? ??? I already told you that the hardware source files are open and public. The source files are not public. The only thing that is public is a PDF file containing bitmap images generated from other (Eagle?) source files. The other source files themselves are not available. Yes. I don't understand how you can maintain that the source files are public. If I remember there was a printout of the ssl code on paper, exported as a book from the US and then typed in again by volunteers to found openssl. Was it non.open source? Just not in the format you would like to see them but you are free to convert them. You don't seem to understand that the difference in format is critical. It is the difference that prevents the GTA04 being described as free hardware. Yes, I don't really understand, because I don't care that much about sophistry and ideology. I want to get things materialize. And for me any printout that I can read is open source. A missing printout is closed source. Tertium non datur. By your logic, all binary software executables are open because the format can be converted into assembler. While it may be true that one can disassemble binaries and modify the resulting assembler, this is not what we're referring to by the phrase free software. Similarly, the GTA04 is not free hardware. And by the way, I looked into your idea of scanning PCB schematics. It's bogus. I tried to see whether any suitable software was available but here's what I found instead: there is no direct way to translate pure graphical data to an intelligent schematic, EDA schematics contain a lot of intelligent information that simply is not available on a sheet of paper http://www.edaboard.com/thread8258.html No, nothing like that exists. ... Such a tool would be difficult to create, and impossible to realistically support considering the multitude of ways even a single IC could be represented. ... In short, it's unrealistic. http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/66432/any-research-to-turn-schematics-as-a-picture-into-a-simulation Here I am referring to the typical discussion about binary blobs and firmware drivers - because we decide(d) to use chips we can buy. You're obviously using the phrase free hardware to mean hardware that can run with entirely free software. This seems to be non-normal usage. For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_Freedom_Day Hm. That doesn't tell me much. Neither the Openmoko, OpenPandora, Ubuntu Edge, GTA04 are open hardware - and never were intended to be. They are well documented hardware for free and open software. Generally, I agree with jOERG's comments. If you don't like this situation, start your own project and make it open hardware (in your definition), but don't expect us to do that step for you. -- hns ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)
Am 05.10.2013 um 05:09 schrieb Paul Wise: On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: I already told you that the hardware source files are open and public. I agree with Bob Ham on this. The source files are not public and even the PDFs are not open, they are licensed under a non-commercial license (CC-BY-NC-SA). You are mixing Free dom with Free Beer. Even the BeagleBone Black people are able to release some sort of hardware source files: https://github.com/CircuitCo/-BeagleBone-Black-RevA5/ Yes, they did decide to do it that way. But: some people are able to jump out of the window. So do you do as well? Strange argument... jOERG is right... -- hns ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
