subject:"Re\: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone $right now$"


Am 05.10.2013 um 08:28 schrieb Paul Wise:

 On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
 
 You are mixing Free dom with Free Beer.
 
 https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
 
 But: some people are able to jump out of the window. So do you do as well?
 
 I followed the FSF and Debian out the window a long time ago and I am
 fairly happy with the result.

Yes, but they all decided themselves to volunteer to contribute to FSF and 
Debian.
For no payment (or by being paid by others). And I have done that as well.

But it was always *my* decision to volunteer or not. And that is not something
we can discuss or you can convince me.

 
 Strange argument... jOERG is right...
 
 To me his mail was a bizarre overreaction to a request for
 clarification of your reasons for wanting to keep goldelico in control
 of gta04 production.

I agree with him. We don't owe the community anything beyond what we
have voluntarily done or will do.

In general the offer of Free projects is: look, here is something others have
piled up in the past years. If you want to use it, please use it. But you are
obliged to give back your changes to support the community.

You are argueing from an egocentric point of view: look, there is something,
others have piled up in the past years. I want to use it. So they are obliged
to give me everything I think I need (even if you don't really need it) to 
support
me or others.

At least this is what I read from rah's and your arguments.

 

 
 The request for clarification was probably not needed though, you have
 made it fairly clear over a few threads over the years that you aren't
 interested in making the gta04 Free Hardware as rah and myself
 appear to define it.

I simply don't believe in the Free Hardware ideology.

The reason is that there is the idea of an allmende or community
behind, where everyone gets back as much as he/she invests by
volunteer work. This is good - in theory.

With Free Hardware I simply don't see that being balanced. I.e. you
can't expect to get back enough high quality volunteer contributions
from the general public to balance what you have to invest yourself
to get something 100% done. And hardware must be finished 100%
at some deadline (contrary to community software projects - just send
out 3.12-rc4).

The GTA02-core project has clearly demonstrated that some years ago.
The engineering community development model does not work for
hardware. So there is no need for Free hardware licences to regulate
the interworking of a big worldwide engineering team.

Let's say it with some perspective: everybody should do what he/she
can do best. E.g. donate money so that experts can live from that and
invest their time to develop great hardware that allows to run as much
free software as possible (and is well enough documented for that
purpose - but not more). This does not need Free Hardware in your
definition.

 So end of discussion for me, I'll try to avoid replying to any further
 mails on the gta04 topic.

Yes, there is no need for discussions about the freedom of GTA04.

But technical discussions are always welcome.

-- hns
___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-10-05 Thread Parchet Michaël

Hello,

Your free hardware idon't use the Planned obsolescence concept isn't it ?

Thanks for your answer.

Best regards

mparchet

 Le 5 oct. 2013 à 09:11, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller h...@goldelico.com a 
 écrit :
 
 
 Am 05.10.2013 um 08:28 schrieb Paul Wise:
 
 On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
 
 You are mixing Free dom with Free Beer.
 
 https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
 
 But: some people are able to jump out of the window. So do you do as well?
 
 I followed the FSF and Debian out the window a long time ago and I am
 fairly happy with the result.
 
 Yes, but they all decided themselves to volunteer to contribute to FSF and 
 Debian.
 For no payment (or by being paid by others). And I have done that as well.
 
 But it was always *my* decision to volunteer or not. And that is not something
 we can discuss or you can convince me.
 
 
 Strange argument... jOERG is right...
 
 To me his mail was a bizarre overreaction to a request for
 clarification of your reasons for wanting to keep goldelico in control
 of gta04 production.
 
 I agree with him. We don't owe the community anything beyond what we
 have voluntarily done or will do.
 
 In general the offer of Free projects is: look, here is something others have
 piled up in the past years. If you want to use it, please use it. But you are
 obliged to give back your changes to support the community.
 
 You are argueing from an egocentric point of view: look, there is something,
 others have piled up in the past years. I want to use it. So they are obliged
 to give me everything I think I need (even if you don't really need it) to 
 support
 me or others.
 
 At least this is what I read from rah's and your arguments.
 
 
 
 The request for clarification was probably not needed though, you have
 made it fairly clear over a few threads over the years that you aren't
 interested in making the gta04 Free Hardware as rah and myself
 appear to define it.
 
 I simply don't believe in the Free Hardware ideology.
 
 The reason is that there is the idea of an allmende or community
 behind, where everyone gets back as much as he/she invests by
 volunteer work. This is good - in theory.
 
 With Free Hardware I simply don't see that being balanced. I.e. you
 can't expect to get back enough high quality volunteer contributions
 from the general public to balance what you have to invest yourself
 to get something 100% done. And hardware must be finished 100%
 at some deadline (contrary to community software projects - just send
 out 3.12-rc4).
 
 The GTA02-core project has clearly demonstrated that some years ago.
 The engineering community development model does not work for
 hardware. So there is no need for Free hardware licences to regulate
 the interworking of a big worldwide engineering team.
 
 Let's say it with some perspective: everybody should do what he/she
 can do best. E.g. donate money so that experts can live from that and
 invest their time to develop great hardware that allows to run as much
 free software as possible (and is well enough documented for that
 purpose - but not more). This does not need Free Hardware in your
 definition.
 
 So end of discussion for me, I'll try to avoid replying to any further
 mails on the gta04 topic.
 
 Yes, there is no need for discussions about the freedom of GTA04.
 
 But technical discussions are always welcome.
 
 -- hns
 ___
 Openmoko community mailing list
 community@lists.openmoko.org
 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 07:50 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:

 Neither the Openmoko, OpenPandora, Ubuntu Edge, GTA04 are
 open hardware - and never were intended to be.

That isn't what your OpenPhoenux page says:

  Open Hardware Devices.

  Letux 2804 / GTA04 Smartphone

http://www.openphoenux.org/ 


You're also contradicting your own previous statements:

  I see the role of GDC [Golden Delicious Computers] to provide future
  open hardware but remain software agnostic

http://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/community/2012-May/066835.html



On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 09:11 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:

 I simply don't believe in the Free Hardware ideology.

This admission makes your announcement here seem deceitful:

  we are happy that we can make an announcement to the Free and
  Open Hardware Community, right in time for X-mas and New Year:  We
  have finally tested, understood and patched the bugs of the
  first GTA04 sample board

http://lists.en.qi-hardware.com/pipermail/discussion/2010-December/006585.html


-- 
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)

2013-10-05 Thread Sebastian Krzyszkowiak

On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Bob Ham r...@settrans.net wrote:
 On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 07:50 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:

 Neither the Openmoko, OpenPandora, Ubuntu Edge, GTA04 are
 open hardware - and never were intended to be.

 That isn't what your OpenPhoenux page says:

   Open Hardware Devices.

   Letux 2804 / GTA04 Smartphone

 http://www.openphoenux.org/


 You're also contradicting your own previous statements:

   I see the role of GDC [Golden Delicious Computers] to provide future
   open hardware but remain software agnostic

 http://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/community/2012-May/066835.html

You're nitpicking about different meanings of open and free. This
discussion is no better than arguments about the freedom of GPL versus
BSD. It leads nowhere.

-- 
Sebastian Krzyszkowiak, dos
http://dosowisko.net/

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 13:34 +0200, Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:

 You're nitpicking about different meanings of open and free.

This is hardly nitpicking.  If I had known what Nikolaus's position was
back in 2010, I doubt I would ever have bought a GTA04.  There seems to
be (1) the meaning that Nikolaus gives free hardware and open
hardware; and (2) the meaning everyone else gives free hardware and
open hardware.

It seems to me that Nikolaus has falsely advertised the GTA04, and is
continuing to do so.

-- 
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)

2013-10-05 Thread Fernando Martins


On 10/05/2013 01:34 PM, Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:

On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Bob Ham r...@settrans.net wrote:

On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 07:50 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:


Neither the Openmoko, OpenPandora, Ubuntu Edge, GTA04 are
open hardware - and never were intended to be.

That isn't what your OpenPhoenux page says:

   Open Hardware Devices.

   Letux 2804 / GTA04 Smartphone

http://www.openphoenux.org/


You're also contradicting your own previous statements:

   I see the role of GDC [Golden Delicious Computers] to provide future
   open hardware but remain software agnostic

http://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/community/2012-May/066835.html

You're nitpicking about different meanings of open and free. This
discussion is no better than arguments about the freedom of GPL versus
BSD. It leads nowhere.


+1

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-10-05 Thread Sebastian Krzyszkowiak

On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Bob Ham r...@settrans.net wrote:
 On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 13:34 +0200, Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:

 You're nitpicking about different meanings of open and free.

 This is hardly nitpicking.  If I had known what Nikolaus's position was
 back in 2010, I doubt I would ever have bought a GTA04.  There seems to
 be (1) the meaning that Nikolaus gives free hardware and open
 hardware; and (2) the meaning everyone else gives free hardware and
 open hardware.

 It seems to me that Nikolaus has falsely advertised the GTA04, and is
 continuing to do so.

I think everything needed to evaluate if GTA04 is an open hardware
as in your dictionary was already available before ordering. Still,
GTA04 is in this regard just as free as GTA02 and maybe even more
(there were no schematics for GTA02 published on launch, and even now
not all of them are publicly available. And those which are, are also
only in PDFs)

In my dictionary, it's definitely free platform. One of the only ones
in mobile world. But yes, I can agree that the usage of free
hardware term may be a bit confusing.

-- 
Sebastian Krzyszkowiak, dos
http://dosowisko.net/

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 14:07 +0200, Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:

 I can agree that the usage of free
 hardware term may be a bit confusing.

Describing the GTA04 as Open Hardware on openphoenux.org is, I
believe, not just confusing but dishonest.

-- 
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 05 October 2013 11:09:02 Parchet Michaël wrote:
 Hello,
 
 Your free hardware idon't use the Planned obsolescence concept isn't it ?
 
 Thanks for your answer.
 
 Best regards
 
 mparchet

Now THIS is a good question! 
And the answer is: of course NO planned osolescence, we build that stuff for 
ourselves first and foremost :-) I want to *use* my device, once it's built, 
and I want to do that for a looong time to come.

cheers
jOERG
(please read http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/User:JOERG ! jOERG is my 
signature, I don't like to see it counterfeit ;-D )
-- 
()  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 05.10.2013 um 12:12 schrieb Bob Ham:

 On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 07:50 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
 
 Neither the Openmoko, OpenPandora, Ubuntu Edge, GTA04 are
 open hardware - and never were intended to be.
 
 That isn't what your OpenPhoenux page says:
 
  Open Hardware Devices.
 
  Letux 2804 / GTA04 Smartphone
 
 http://www.openphoenux.org/ 
 
 
 You're also contradicting your own previous statements:
 
  I see the role of GDC [Golden Delicious Computers] to provide future
  open hardware but remain software agnostic
 
 http://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/community/2012-May/066835.html

 
 
 
 On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 09:11 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
 
 I simply don't believe in the Free Hardware ideology.
 
 This admission makes your announcement here seem deceitful:
 
  we are happy that we can make an announcement to the Free and
  Open Hardware Community, right in time for X-mas and New Year:  We
  have finally tested, understood and patched the bugs of the
  first GTA04 sample board
 
 http://lists.en.qi-hardware.com/pipermail/discussion/2010-December/006585.html

Hm, I wonder what you want to prove?

Shaking heads only...

-- 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 14:14 schrieb Bob Ham:

 On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 14:07 +0200, Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:
 
 I can agree that the usage of free
 hardware term may be a bit confusing.
 
 Describing the GTA04 as Open Hardware on openphoenux.org is, I
 believe, not just confusing but dishonest.

Who did put you into the position to make such offensive judgements?

-- hns

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-10-05 Thread Fernando Martins


On 10/05/2013 02:14 PM, Bob Ham wrote:

On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 14:07 +0200, Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:


I can agree that the usage of free
hardware term may be a bit confusing.

Describing the GTA04 as Open Hardware on openphoenux.org is, I
believe, not just confusing but dishonest.


When the PC was released by IBM it was considered open hardware.

___
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 14:14 schrieb Bob Ham:

 On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 14:07 +0200, Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:
 
 I can agree that the usage of free
 hardware term may be a bit confusing.
 
 Describing the GTA04 as Open Hardware on openphoenux.org is, I
 believe, not just confusing but dishonest.


Ok, what would be a better wording for a well documented hardware
so open in documentation that everyone can write and install any
free and open operating system he/she likes?

I.e. there is no documentation hidden voluntarily that is needed to
reach this goal (you don't need Gerber files to make Linux, OpenBSD,
whatever work).

Maybe the usual distinction made between Open and Free software
holds here as well?

Open does not necessarily mean Free(dom). But open is definitively
the opposite of closed.

So what is wrong with describing it as Open Hardware on
openphoenux.org?

-- 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 17:42 schrieb Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller:

 
 Am 05.10.2013 um 14:14 schrieb Bob Ham:
 
 On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 14:07 +0200, Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:
 
 I can agree that the usage of free
 hardware term may be a bit confusing.
 
 Describing the GTA04 as Open Hardware on openphoenux.org is, I
 believe, not just confusing but dishonest.
 
 
 Ok, what would be a better wording for a well documented hardware
 so open in documentation that everyone can write and install any
 free and open operating system he/she likes?
 
 I.e. there is no documentation hidden voluntarily that is needed to
s/voluntarily/intentionally/s
 
 reach this goal (you don't need Gerber files to make Linux, OpenBSD,
 whatever work).
 
 Maybe the usual distinction made between Open and Free software
 holds here as well?
 
 Open does not necessarily mean Free(dom). But open is definitively
 the opposite of closed.
 
 So what is wrong with describing it as Open Hardware on
 openphoenux.org?
 
 -- hns
 
 ___
 Openmoko community mailing list
 community@lists.openmoko.org
 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community


___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 17:17 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
 Am 05.10.2013 um 12:12 schrieb Bob Ham:
 
  On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 07:50 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
  
  Neither the Openmoko, OpenPandora, Ubuntu Edge, GTA04 are
  open hardware - and never were intended to be.
  
  That isn't what your OpenPhoenux page says:

  You're also contradicting your own previous statements:

  This admission makes your announcement here seem deceitful:

 Hm, I wonder what you want to prove?

I want you to stop describing the GTA04 as open hardware.  You seem to
be aware that there is a difference between what you describe as open
hardware and what others describe as open hardware and yet you ignore
this discrepancy and continue as if what you're saying is true because
it accords with your own personal definition.

I want to make it undeniably clear that describing the GTA04 as open
hardware is wrong.


On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 07:50 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
 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?

It was not open source.  This issue has been discussed previously.  The
source must be in the form customarily used for making modifications to
it.  This is an important factor.

From the GNU GPL 2:

  'The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
  making modifications to it'
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

From the Apache License 2.0:

  'Source form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications'
https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html

From the MPL 2.0:

  '“Source Code Form” means the form of the work preferred for making
  modifications.'
https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/

From the CDDL 1.0:

  '“Source Code” means (a) the common form of computer software code in
  which modifications are made and (b) associated documentation included
  in or with such code.'
http://web.archive.org/web/20090305064954/http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html


If a software company refused access to their software's source code in
electronic text form and only released it in paper form (or in the form
of a bitmap image inside a PDF), that software would not be considered
open source.  The phrase that seems most appropriate for such
software, I think, would be encumbered source.


Wikipedia gives a fair description of open(/free) hardware:

  'Open-source hardware consists of physical artifacts of technology
  designed and offered by the open design movement.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_hardware

And of the open design movement, it says this:

  'Open design is the development of physical products, machines and
  systems through use of publicly shared design information. ... The
  process is generally facilitated by the Internet and often performed
  without monetary compensation. The goals and philosophy are identical
  to that of the open-source movement, but are implemented for the
  development of physical products rather than software.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_design

The Hardware Freedom Day website states the following:

  'Goals and philosophy of the Open Hardware movement are closely
  aligned with the ones of the Free Software movement.'
http://www.hfday.org/open-hardware

The free hardware and open hardware communities derive their ethos from
free software and open-source software.  Access to source files in the
preferred format for making modifications is therefore an important
requirement for free/open hardware just as it is for free/open software.

The Open Source Hardware and Design Alliance have taken the four
freedoms of the Free Software Definition and modified them to apply to
free hardware.  They stipulate the following in freedoms 1 and 3 of
their criteria for use of the OHANDA label:

  'Access to the *complete* design is precondition to this'
http://www.ohanda.org/  (My emphasis)

The requirement is made explicit by the Open Source Hardware Association
which has the following in its Open Source Hardware Definition 1.0:

  'The documentation must include design files in the preferred format
  for making changes, for example the native file format of a CAD
  program.'
http://www.oshwa.org/definition/


The idea that a circuit schematic in bitmap form constitutes the source
for open hardware is fallacious.


Furthermore, continuing to quote Wikipedia on open design:

  Open design is a form of co-creation, where the final product is
  designed by the users, rather than an external stakeholder such as a
  private company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_design


What you're doing is nothing to do with open hardware.  The idea that
you can pop some schematic bitmaps in the back of your manual while
refusing access to the source files, and then rightfully label your
company's product as open hardware is fallacious.

Please stop labelling your company's product as open hardware.

-- 
Bob Ham

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-10-05 Thread Martin Jansa

On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 05:37:59PM +, Bob Ham wrote:
 On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 17:17 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
  Am 05.10.2013 um 12:12 schrieb Bob Ham:
  
   On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 07:50 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
   
   Neither the Openmoko, OpenPandora, Ubuntu Edge, GTA04 are
   open hardware - and never were intended to be.
   
   That isn't what your OpenPhoenux page says:
 
   You're also contradicting your own previous statements:
 
   This admission makes your announcement here seem deceitful:
 
  Hm, I wonder what you want to prove?
 
 I want you to stop describing the GTA04 as open hardware.  You seem to
 be aware that there is a difference between what you describe as open
 hardware and what others describe as open hardware and yet you ignore
 this discrepancy and continue as if what you're saying is true because
 it accords with your own personal definition.

I'm sorry but I think you're doing the same, just from the other side.

From this thread it's clear that different people understand open
hardware differently, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong or
dishonest.

open hardware isn't AFAIK any registered sticker or trade mark
with clearly defined meaning, so it's pity that different people
associate it with different meanings/freedoms, but that's not their
fault.

Your source code citations from licenses are nice, but license text is
the right place where you should find definition of what's meant by term
source code, OpenPhoenux page doesn't say that it's using terminilogy
from ohanda or oshwa.

open hardware is imho closest term you can use to describe advantage
of gta04 for other people asking why you don't use cheaper android phone
or why they should buy gta04.

Using open-hardware-but-without-CAD-files is maybe less misleading for
people who has great understanding of all free/open definitions used in
the world (and wikipedia), but also more misleading for normal people.

Your accusations sounds like if Nikolaus is using OHANDA clearly defined
label without fulfilling requirements defined by OHANDA.

It's like saying that gta04 is small phone and then arguing if it's
small enough and that someone seen smaller phone and someone seen a lot
bigger phone and that some other project define small microwave as box
10x10x10cm so the small in small phone should be something like
that.

 I want to make it undeniably clear that describing the GTA04 as open
 hardware is wrong.
 
 
 On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 07:50 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
  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?
 
 It was not open source.  This issue has been discussed previously.  The
 source must be in the form customarily used for making modifications to
 it.  This is an important factor.
 
 From the GNU GPL 2:
 
   'The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
   making modifications to it'
 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
 
 From the Apache License 2.0:
 
   'Source form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications'
 https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
 
 From the MPL 2.0:
 
   '“Source Code Form” means the form of the work preferred for making
   modifications.'
 https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/
 
 From the CDDL 1.0:
 
   '“Source Code” means (a) the common form of computer software code in
   which modifications are made and (b) associated documentation included
   in or with such code.'
 http://web.archive.org/web/20090305064954/http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html
 
 
 If a software company refused access to their software's source code in
 electronic text form and only released it in paper form (or in the form
 of a bitmap image inside a PDF), that software would not be considered
 open source.  The phrase that seems most appropriate for such
 software, I think, would be encumbered source.
 
 
 Wikipedia gives a fair description of open(/free) hardware:
 
   'Open-source hardware consists of physical artifacts of technology
   designed and offered by the open design movement.'
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_hardware
 
 And of the open design movement, it says this:
 
   'Open design is the development of physical products, machines and
   systems through use of publicly shared design information. ... The
   process is generally facilitated by the Internet and often performed
   without monetary compensation. The goals and philosophy are identical
   to that of the open-source movement, but are implemented for the
   development of physical products rather than software.'
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_design
 
 The Hardware Freedom Day website states the following:
 
   'Goals and philosophy of the Open Hardware movement are closely
   aligned with the ones of the Free Software movement.'
 http://www.hfday.org/open-hardware
 
 The free hardware and open hardware communities derive

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

On Sat 05 October 2013 19:37:59 Bob Ham wrote:
  Hm, I wonder what you want to prove?
 
 I want you to stop describing the GTA04 as open hardware.  You seem to
 be aware that there is a difference between what you describe as open
 hardware and what others describe as open hardware and yet you ignore
 this discrepancy and continue as if what you're saying is true because
 it accords with your own personal definition.
 
 I want to make it undeniably clear that describing the GTA04 as open
 hardware is wrong.

According to your own personal definition.

 What you're doing is nothing to do with open hardware.  The idea that
 you can pop some schematic bitmaps in the back of your manual while
 refusing access to the source files, and then rightfully label your
 company's product as open hardware is fallacious.
 
 Please stop labelling your company's product as open hardware.

I seems that all your quotations and arguments refer to some form of licence 
finally. You can't request anybody who's disclosing his sourcecode to refrain 
from calling it open source as long as s/he's not claiming it adheres to a 
certain licence like e.g. GPL.
Same applies to calling a hardware open hardware as long as it doesn't claim 
to adhere to whatever open-hardware-licence (and heck, there are so many 
diferent licences like there are different open-hardware projects out there, 
see the wili pages you quoted).

Bottom line: when GolDeliCo's definition of open hardware doesn't meet yours, 
there's hardly anything you can do about it. I suggest you just check the 
particular project's licencing to find out about the details of open just 
like you have to do with every arbitrary other open hardware project. 

cheers
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)

on a sidenote: Was KDE no open source software when Qt wasn't FOSS (for those 
who still remember that time)?

In layout project files they might even be (C) non-free libraries for e.g. 
component footprints, which would *forbid* disclosing them to the general 
public. Is the hardware less open then? Should EE create their own footprint 
lib to be allowed to give the rest of the docs to the community, since without 
footprints in project file the whole project isn't open anymore?

I think sometimes it's pretty tedious to discuss hw subjects with people who 
come from a sw background. So I will stop contributing to this futile 
discussion now.

/j
-- 
()  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 05.10.2013 um 19:37 schrieb Bob Ham:

 On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 17:17 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
 Am 05.10.2013 um 12:12 schrieb Bob Ham:
 
 On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 07:50 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
 
 Neither the Openmoko, OpenPandora, Ubuntu Edge, GTA04 are
 open hardware - and never were intended to be.
 
 That isn't what your OpenPhoenux page says:
 
 You're also contradicting your own previous statements:
 
 This admission makes your announcement here seem deceitful:
 
 Hm, I wonder what you want to prove?
 
 I want you to stop describing the GTA04 as open hardware.  

Ah, you are an idelogic activist. I should have taken that into account from
the beginning of any discussion.

Because prefer to discuss with common sense and not needing to
weigh one's words ...

 You seem to
 be aware that there is a difference between what you describe as open
 hardware and what others describe as open hardware and yet you ignore
 this discrepancy and continue as if what you're saying is true because
 it accords with your own personal definition.

Did you consider the option that all others may be wrong?

And, please give me the officially approved definition of Open Hardware
by ISO or some other official standardization body. If that exists, I will 
follow it.
Otherwise there are several personal definitions.

 I want to make it undeniably clear that describing the GTA04 as open
 hardware is wrong.

This is your personal opinion.

I only agree that it is not Free Hardware.

And since it is obviously not closed hardware (like an iPhone, Lumia etc.)
it follows from logic that it must be open hardware.

 On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 07:50 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
 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?
 
 It was not open source.
  This issue has been discussed previously.  The
 source must be in the form customarily used for making modifications to
 it.  This is an important factor.

Why? I see the distinction between closed and open not in the convenience
of sharing information.

 
 From the GNU GPL 2:
 
  'The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
  making modifications to it'

preferred != required

 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
 
 From the Apache License 2.0:
 
  'Source form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications'
 https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html

preferred != required

 
 From the MPL 2.0:
 
  '“Source Code Form” means the form of the work preferred for making
  modifications.'
 https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/

preferred != required

 
 From the CDDL 1.0:
 
  '“Source Code” means (a) the common form of computer software code in
  which modifications are made and (b) associated documentation included
  in or with such code.'
 http://web.archive.org/web/20090305064954/http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html

The common form of Schematics is a piece of paper with lines, circles and arcs.

 If a software company refused access to their software's source code in
 electronic text form and only released it in paper form (or in the form
 of a bitmap image inside a PDF), that software would not be considered
 open source.  The phrase that seems most appropriate for such
 software, I think, would be encumbered source.
 
 
 Wikipedia gives a fair description of open(/free) hardware:
 
  'Open-source hardware consists of physical artifacts of technology
  designed and offered by the open design movement.'
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_hardware
 
 And of the open design movement, it says this:
 
  'Open design is the development of physical products, machines and
  systems through use of publicly shared design information. ... The
  process is generally facilitated by the Internet and often performed
  without monetary compensation.

That is an description of the status quo and not a normative definition
of Open Hardware.

 The goals and philosophy are identical
  to that of the open-source movement, but are implemented for the
  development of physical products rather than software.'
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_design

Wikipedia is not a definition. It is a description of how authors see
the world.

 The Hardware Freedom Day website states the following:
 
  'Goals and philosophy of the Open Hardware movement are closely
  aligned with the ones of the Free Software movement.'
 http://www.hfday.org/open-hardware

They call themselves Freedom Day but try to coin the word Open Hardware.

I would be happy if they would talk about Free Hardware.

 
 The free hardware and open hardware communities derive their ethos from
 free software and open-source software.  Access to source files in the
 preferred format for making modifications is therefore an important
 requirement for free/open hardware just as it is for free/open software.

Again, what is the difference between Free and Open?

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)


Am 05.10.2013 um 20:10 schrieb Martin Jansa:

 On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 05:37:59PM +, Bob Ham wrote:
 On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 17:17 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
 Am 05.10.2013 um 12:12 schrieb Bob Ham:
 
 On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 07:50 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
 
 Neither the Openmoko, OpenPandora, Ubuntu Edge, GTA04 are
 open hardware - and never were intended to be.
 
 That isn't what your OpenPhoenux page says:
 
 You're also contradicting your own previous statements:
 
 This admission makes your announcement here seem deceitful:
 
 Hm, I wonder what you want to prove?
 
 I want you to stop describing the GTA04 as open hardware.  You seem to
 be aware that there is a difference between what you describe as open
 hardware and what others describe as open hardware and yet you ignore
 this discrepancy and continue as if what you're saying is true because
 it accords with your own personal definition.
 
 I'm sorry but I think you're doing the same, just from the other side.
 
 From this thread it's clear that different people understand open
 hardware differently, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong or
 dishonest.
 
 open hardware isn't AFAIK any registered sticker or trade mark
 with clearly defined meaning, so it's pity that different people
 associate it with different meanings/freedoms, but that's not their
 fault.

++

 Your source code citations from licenses are nice, but license text is
 the right place where you should find definition of what's meant by term
 source code, OpenPhoenux page doesn't say that it's using terminilogy
 from ohanda or oshwa.

++

and not from GPL or BSD or MIT licenses etc.

We use CC and it defines:

THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CREATIVE 
COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE (CCPL OR LICENSE).

Work means the literary and/or artistic work offered under the terms of this 
License including without limitation any production in the literary, scientific 
and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression 
including digital form, such as a book, pamphlet and other writing; a lecture, 
address, sermon or other work of the same nature; a dramatic or 
dramatico-musical work; ...

I.e. paper is explicitly included and all forms of its expression.

 open hardware is imho closest term you can use to describe advantage
 of gta04 for other people asking why you don't use cheaper android phone
 or why they should buy gta04.

or even more closed buy an iPhone or Lumia...

 Using open-hardware-but-without-CAD-files is maybe less misleading for
 people who has great understanding of all free/open definitions used in
 the world (and wikipedia), but also more misleading for normal people.
 
 Your accusations sounds like if Nikolaus is using OHANDA clearly defined
 label without fulfilling requirements defined by OHANDA.

++

this confirms my own answer (was written before reading yours).

Tnx -- hns


___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 20:10 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
 On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 05:37:59PM +, Bob Ham wrote:

  I want you to stop describing the GTA04 as open hardware.  You seem to
  be aware that there is a difference between what you describe as open
  hardware and what others describe as open hardware and yet you ignore
  this discrepancy and continue as if what you're saying is true because
  it accords with your own personal definition.
 
 I'm sorry but I think you're doing the same, just from the other side.
 
 From this thread it's clear that different people understand open
 hardware differently, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong or
 dishonest.

I disagree.  I've quoted a number of different bodies on their idea of
what constitutes open hardware and they all concur.

Meanwhile:

On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 07:50 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
 And for me any printout that I can read is open source.

Nikolaus goes by his own definitions, regardless of what is generally
accepted.  We've even got people making up their own meaningless
phrases:

On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 14:07 +0200, Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:
 In my dictionary, it's definitely free platform. 

The way I see it, on one hand there is a bunch of individuals on a
mailing list with their own ideas about what the phrase open hardware
should refer to, and on the other hand there are a number of
well-organised bodies with clear definitions which are not only in
accord with each other but with (1) the open hardware community that I
know and (2) the principles of the free software movement and the open
source community, the progenitors of those bodies.

==
 open hardware isn't AFAIK any registered sticker or trade mark
 with clearly defined meaning, so it's pity that different people
 associate it with different meanings/freedoms, but that's not their
 fault.

The people here seem to have their own meanings.  Everybody else seems
to have a pretty consistent idea about what constitutes open hardware.

You're right though, there is no trade mark.  I would hope that by
clearly demonstrating how Nikolaus's ideas conflict with the basic ideas
of the open hardware community, he will respect the fact that there is
an incompatibility and refrain from misrepresenting his product.


==
 Your source code citations from licenses are nice, but license text is
 the right place where you should find definition of what's meant by term
 source code

The quotations from license are there as evidence of the principles of
the free software movement and the open source community.  Licenses are
explicit manifestations of the ideas and motivations behind these
groups.  If you want to find out what the open source community or the
free software movement believes, the licenses they create are the place
to go.

What we see when look at those expressions of principles is a common
theme of requiring source code to be in the preferred form for making
modifications.  This idea has been inherited by the open hardware
community.  The inheritance is expressed in the Open Source Hardware
Definition and elsewhere.

To me, those people who disagree are not part of the open hardware
community.  They're part of some other community which does not share
the principles of the open design movement.  And in fact, Nikolaus
admits as much:

On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 09:11 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
 I simply don't believe in the Free Hardware ideology. 

==
 Your accusations sounds like if Nikolaus is using OHANDA clearly defined
 label without fulfilling requirements defined by OHANDA.

Well, I'm not sure how you get that impression.  It's not like it's a
matter of adherence to a collection of finely detailed criteria.

Nikolaus denies access to the source files for his hardware.  It's not a
subtle conflict.  It flies in the face of the open hardware movement.
To be honest, I'm dumbfounded that there can be any confusion over it.


-- 
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)

2013-10-05 Thread Stefan Monnier

 But none of them is building modular devices. I wonder why.

For the same reason they don't make their hardware open, for the same
reason they don't make their software Free, for the same reason they
don't want you to have root access on your phone.


Stefan


___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-10-05 Thread Álvaro Lopes

On 05/10/13 18:37, Bob Ham wrote:
 'Access to the *complete* design is precondition to this' 
 http://www.ohanda.org/  (My emphasis)

Long time has passed since I post to this list.

Dearest all,

open software is something quite easy do define - it's written in common 
languages, so that it's purpose, function and behavior is pretty much easy to
replicate. The openness refers to what the author wanted - he wanted *that 
piece of design* to be able to be used elsewhere, with or without some 
associated
constraints.

Hardware is a bit different, unfortunately, if you don't actually focus on the 
scope of the openness. It is not possible to actually design an hardware
apparatus, such as the complex ones we're dealing with, and fully open all of 
the design.

Objectively speaking, a fully open hardware design would imply all of the 
hardware components to be open. This means all of the design components 
(including
the chemical components used for all of the process) would be disclosed. This 
is not feasible, is it ?

An open source windows application uses components which are not open, and 
whose behavior is sometimes not fully understood. Does that make that specific
piece of software less open ?

An hardware design is open, as far as all of the design that actually can be 
made open is indeed open - as specified by the developers of that hardware part
(schematics, so on).

If I draw a diagram connecting two components whose purpose and functional 
specifications were made available to me by means of some NDA, that does not 
make
my diagram less open - I just cannot disclose the information regarding some of 
the components on it (like there is no full information on the Windows API).

And please, please, don't throw GPL/Apache and such as examples of open source. 
They impose several restrictions on what can be done with the design,
rendering them less open than some of their counterparts (like BSD).

Best,

Alvie

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-10-05 Thread Martin Jansa

On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 07:05:10PM +, Bob Ham wrote:
  Your accusations sounds like if Nikolaus is using OHANDA clearly defined
  label without fulfilling requirements defined by OHANDA.
 
 Well, I'm not sure how you get that impression.  It's not like it's a
 matter of adherence to a collection of finely detailed criteria.

In source code repository you also need to explicitly say which license
is applied and only after that you're obliged to follow selected license
rules.

If wiki page related to the project says that the code is free or
open then it doesn't automatically mean that it's GPL-2.0 or any other
open license - so you don't have detailed criteria if that project can
say that it's free or open on their own page.

We're not talking about license text delivered with gta04, we're talking
about home page of project which is trying to attract normal people (who
maybe never heard about floss).

 Nikolaus denies access to the source files for his hardware.  It's not a
 subtle conflict.  It flies in the face of the open hardware movement.
 To be honest, I'm dumbfounded that there can be any confusion over it.

No, he does not. You cannot download them in format most convenient for
you, but that doesn't mean it's not open hardware (without any
footnote that OHANDA or any other official terminology is used)

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

On Sat 05 October 2013 21:03:44 Stefan Monnier wrote:
  But none of them is building modular devices. I wonder why.
 
 For the same reason they don't make their hardware open, for the same
 reason they don't make their software Free, for the same reason they
 don't want you to have root access on your phone.
 
 
 Stefan

Nonsense, read very enlightening post of Ian Sterling (Hi speedevil! :-D) 
somewhere in this thread!

/j
-- 
()  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)

2013-10-04 Thread 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.  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)

2013-10-04 Thread joerg Reisenweber

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)

2013-10-04 Thread Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller


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)

2013-10-04 Thread 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.

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)

2013-10-04 Thread 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).

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)

2013-10-04 Thread Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller

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.

???

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.

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:

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)

2013-10-04 Thread Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller


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

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-10-03 Thread Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller

Hi,

Am 03.10.2013 um 05:15 schrieb Stefan Monnier:

 Production problems show almost immediately, even if there is only one
 person.  And they show after making let's say 20 units.
 
 As you know, that has not been the experience with the GTA02, where
 audio quality output (works fine for line-out but not for headphones),
 GPS issues, and the 1024 issue have appeared over time and some of
 them took a long time to track down and fix.
 
 I can bet that your tests for GTA04 did not catch problems along the
 lines of power consumption issues that will only show up in particular
 usage scenarios that will only be used by the customer number 1462.

Yes, I agree that such tests can only be found by a field test (beta test or 
however
you like to call it).

But they are not production problems, but problems in the circuit design.
With production I mean making n identical copies of a piece of hardware.
And a production problem is if those are not really identical.

Compared with software, they are not compiler of kernel problems but
in the source code of some application.

Running field tests is a common practice in hardware development and
that is why some guys did loose their new iPhones before they were
announced in some bar... And even Apple did not find the antenna problems
before product launch.

So this type of bugs need a big community of persons really using a design.

 
 Also, if you can upgrade the screen and the CPU separately, you might
 attract a few other users, who aren't so interested in Freedom but do
 like the idea of customizing their phones.
 That is a dream that is not realistic. Every display has a different
 connector (there is no standardization!). And every CPU has different
 signals and power supply needs. I.e. you can swap an OMAP3505 for an
 OMAP3530 or an DM3730 but nor for an OMAP4 or OMAP5 or Snapdragon or
 i.MX6.  Because they are not designed for this way of use.
 
 I know.  But I'm not talking about swapping the actual CPU or the
 actual display.  I'm talking about swapping the CPU module or the
 display module.  I.e. create a standardized module interface around
 off-the-shelf (i.e. non-standardized) components.

Yes, there is even a standard for an interface between displays and CPU.
Well, even two or three:

MIPI, LVDS, HDMI/DVI.

 It would have its own cost (in money and in size), but in the long run,
 I hope the benefits of relying on standardized interfaces would make up
 for it.

MIPI is already doing all this:

http://www.mipi.org/specifications
http://mipi.org/about-mipi/mipi-interfaces-mobile-platform
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Industry_Processor_Interface

Everyone is there, ARM, TI, even Apple:

http://www.mipi.org/member-directory

But none of them is building modular devices. I wonder why.

 
 From what I can tell, Free Hardware projects don't benefit nearly enough
 from each other's efforts.  Not sure we have enough Sisyphus around to
 keep them all alive.

The problem for us is that we do not that easily get MIPI compliant
components or documents (for members only) than others. And we have
to use components that someone is willing to sell to us at a reasonable
price.

BTW: their monthly fees are public (different type of openness :):

http://mipi.org/join-mipi

-- hns


___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-10-03 Thread joerg Reisenweber

On Thu 03 October 2013 08:56:43 Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
  I know.  But I'm not talking about swapping the actual CPU or the
  actual display.  I'm talking about swapping the CPU module or the
  display module.  I.e. create a standardized module interface around
  off-the-shelf (i.e. non-standardized) components.
 
 Yes, there is even a standard for an interface between displays and CPU.
 Well, even two or three:
 
 MIPI, LVDS, HDMI/DVI.
 
  It would have its own cost (in money and in size), but in the long run,
  I hope the benefits of relying on standardized interfaces would make up
  for it.
 
 MIPI is already doing all this:
 
 http://www.mipi.org/specifications
 http://mipi.org/about-mipi/mipi-interfaces-mobile-platform
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Industry_Processor_Interface
 
 Everyone is there, ARM, TI, even Apple:

Remains to annotate that all those interfaces have rather tough electrical 
specs, e.g. MIPI HSI (often used to interface to modems) has a max PCB trace 
length of 15..20mm iirc, among other requirements that basically forbid usage 
of any connectors at all, for sure the iuse of cheap connectors.

/j
-- 
()  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)

2013-10-03 Thread Bob Ham

On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 23:15 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:

 It would have its own cost (in money and in size), but in the long run,
 I hope the benefits of relying on standardized interfaces would make up
 for it.
 
 From what I can tell, Free Hardware projects don't benefit nearly enough
 from each other's efforts.  Not sure we have enough Sisyphus around to
 keep them all alive.

I would note that the GTA04 is not a Free Hardware project.

-- 
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)

2013-10-03 Thread Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller


Am 03.10.2013 um 20:09 schrieb Bob Ham:

 On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 23:15 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
 
 It would have its own cost (in money and in size), but in the long run,
 I hope the benefits of relying on standardized interfaces would make up
 for it.
 
 From what I can tell, Free Hardware projects don't benefit nearly enough
 from each other's efforts.  Not sure we have enough Sisyphus around to
 keep them all alive.
 
 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, and 
it didn't ever try to be.

Like the GTA01, GTA02 and the Ubuntu Edge (if it had reached its crowdfunding 
goals),
Raspberry Pi, BeagleBoard, OpenPandora, ...

All of them have been as open as it could be practically done at the moment
when some design decisions had to be made.

Yes, it is nice to have an unreachable goalto keep all those Sisyphus people 
working :)

-- hns
___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-10-02 Thread Stefan Monnier

 Production problems show almost immediately, even if there is only one
 person.  And they show after making let's say 20 units.

As you know, that has not been the experience with the GTA02, where
audio quality output (works fine for line-out but not for headphones),
GPS issues, and the 1024 issue have appeared over time and some of
them took a long time to track down and fix.

I can bet that your tests for GTA04 did not catch problems along the
lines of power consumption issues that will only show up in particular
usage scenarios that will only be used by the customer number 1462.

 Also, if you can upgrade the screen and the CPU separately, you might
 attract a few other users, who aren't so interested in Freedom but do
 like the idea of customizing their phones.
 That is a dream that is not realistic. Every display has a different
 connector (there is no standardization!). And every CPU has different
 signals and power supply needs. I.e. you can swap an OMAP3505 for an
 OMAP3530 or an DM3730 but nor for an OMAP4 or OMAP5 or Snapdragon or
 i.MX6.  Because they are not designed for this way of use.

I know.  But I'm not talking about swapping the actual CPU or the
actual display.  I'm talking about swapping the CPU module or the
display module.  I.e. create a standardized module interface around
off-the-shelf (i.e. non-standardized) components.

It would have its own cost (in money and in size), but in the long run,
I hope the benefits of relying on standardized interfaces would make up
for it.

From what I can tell, Free Hardware projects don't benefit nearly enough
from each other's efforts.  Not sure we have enough Sisyphus around to
keep them all alive.


Stefan


___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-09-26 Thread Parchet Michaël

Hello,

Is there a device on production with witch I can choice the os I want install 
or install several os (multi boot) ?

Best regards

mparchet

 Le 25 sept. 2013 à 21:32, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller h...@goldelico.com a 
 écrit :
 
 
 Am 25.09.2013 um 20:45 schrieb Stefan Monnier:
 
 I don't see reliability as a problem because it depends on what type
 of reliability you are thinking of: component, software, hardware,
 production, or availability.
 
 Small production runs means very few people have a chance of
 discovering, let alone, fixing the various problems that can show up.
 
 Production problems show almost immediately, even if there is only one
 person. And they show after making let's say 20 units. I.e. it does not need
 to produce let's say 1000 units to find real production problems. And if
 you produce 1000 and find that 5 are bad, you don't worry as much as
 if you have 2 bad in 20.
 
 
 In essence it goes to a modular approach - but modular typically drives
 cost up (at least for the version having the highest production numbers)
 and is in strong contradiction with miniaturization of handheld devices.
 
 In my part of the world, phones have been getting bigger rather than
 smaller.
 
 Only in dimensions - but they became much slimmer in the same step.
 I.e. the volume has been constant.
 
 And while modularity has a cost, it can be offset by economies
 of scale (both in terms of production as in terms of
 developping/debugging the kernel support) if that module can be reused
 in more places.  Free Software strives on standards and modularity.
 
 Of course it can. It is a matter of calculation.
 
 Also, if you can upgrade the screen and the CPU separately, you might
 attract a few other users, who aren't so interested in Freedom but do
 like the idea of customizing their phones.
 
 That is a dream that is not realistic. Every display has a different connector
 (there is no standardization!). And every CPU has different signals and
 power supply needs. I.e. you can swap an OMAP3505 for an OMAP3530
 or an DM3730 but nor for an OMAP4 or OMAP5 or Snapdragon or i.MX6.
 Because they are not designed for this way of use.
 
 I'd be very happy to have a Free Phablet (and I actually wouldn't
 necessarily need it to have cell-phone connectivity, as long as VoIP
 works well), even if that's not my favorite form factor: at this stage,
 I'm willing to settle for anything smallish.
 
 It would be sufficient to bundle buying power (by summing up # of
 units for different projects), so that we get existing modules
 cheaper.  I.e. if all projects would use let's say an DM3730+Memory,
 they still can be soldered into different devices. Or  WLAN/BT and
 UMTS are already coming as SoC/MCP modules.
 
 Right.  That is a lower-leve of modularity than EOMA but it provides
 similar benefits (not only direct cost, but also developmentdebugging).
 
 So the trick is to use a bigger shopping bag and make a different meal
 out if it every day.
 
 Exactly.  The various Free Hardware communities need to pool
 their resources.
 
 Yes but I have no idea how this could happen.
 
 BR,
 Nikolaus
 
 
 ___
 Openmoko community mailing list
 community@lists.openmoko.org
 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-09-26 Thread Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller


Am 26.09.2013 um 11:06 schrieb Parchet Michaël:

 Hello,
 
 Is there a device on production with witch I can choice the os I want install 
 or install several os (multi boot) ?

Almost. The GTA04A5 can go on production (again) as soon as we get enough 
orders.

-- hns

 
 Best regards
 
 mparchet
 
 Le 25 sept. 2013 à 21:32, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller h...@goldelico.com a 
 écrit :
 
 
 Am 25.09.2013 um 20:45 schrieb Stefan Monnier:
 
 I don't see reliability as a problem because it depends on what type
 of reliability you are thinking of: component, software, hardware,
 production, or availability.
 
 Small production runs means very few people have a chance of
 discovering, let alone, fixing the various problems that can show up.
 
 Production problems show almost immediately, even if there is only one
 person. And they show after making let's say 20 units. I.e. it does not need
 to produce let's say 1000 units to find real production problems. And if
 you produce 1000 and find that 5 are bad, you don't worry as much as
 if you have 2 bad in 20.
 
 
 In essence it goes to a modular approach - but modular typically drives
 cost up (at least for the version having the highest production numbers)
 and is in strong contradiction with miniaturization of handheld devices.
 
 In my part of the world, phones have been getting bigger rather than
 smaller.
 
 Only in dimensions - but they became much slimmer in the same step.
 I.e. the volume has been constant.
 
 And while modularity has a cost, it can be offset by economies
 of scale (both in terms of production as in terms of
 developping/debugging the kernel support) if that module can be reused
 in more places.  Free Software strives on standards and modularity.
 
 Of course it can. It is a matter of calculation.
 
 Also, if you can upgrade the screen and the CPU separately, you might
 attract a few other users, who aren't so interested in Freedom but do
 like the idea of customizing their phones.
 
 That is a dream that is not realistic. Every display has a different 
 connector
 (there is no standardization!). And every CPU has different signals and
 power supply needs. I.e. you can swap an OMAP3505 for an OMAP3530
 or an DM3730 but nor for an OMAP4 or OMAP5 or Snapdragon or i.MX6.
 Because they are not designed for this way of use.
 
 I'd be very happy to have a Free Phablet (and I actually wouldn't
 necessarily need it to have cell-phone connectivity, as long as VoIP
 works well), even if that's not my favorite form factor: at this stage,
 I'm willing to settle for anything smallish.
 
 It would be sufficient to bundle buying power (by summing up # of
 units for different projects), so that we get existing modules
 cheaper.  I.e. if all projects would use let's say an DM3730+Memory,
 they still can be soldered into different devices. Or  WLAN/BT and
 UMTS are already coming as SoC/MCP modules.
 
 Right.  That is a lower-leve of modularity than EOMA but it provides
 similar benefits (not only direct cost, but also developmentdebugging).
 
 So the trick is to use a bigger shopping bag and make a different meal
 out if it every day.
 
 Exactly.  The various Free Hardware communities need to pool
 their resources.
 
 Yes but I have no idea how this could happen.
 
 BR,
 Nikolaus
 
 
 ___
 Openmoko community mailing list
 community@lists.openmoko.org
 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
 
 ___
 Openmoko community mailing list
 community@lists.openmoko.org
 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community


___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-09-26 Thread Parchet Michaël

Hello,

Can you send me the URL for GTA04A5 ?

Best regards

mparchet

Envoyé de mon iPhone

 Le 26 sept. 2013 à 11:18, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller h...@goldelico.com a 
 écrit :
 
 
 Am 26.09.2013 um 11:06 schrieb Parchet Michaël:
 
 Hello,
 
 Is there a device on production with witch I can choice the os I want 
 install or install several os (multi boot) ?
 
 Almost. The GTA04A5 can go on production (again) as soon as we get enough 
 orders.
 
 -- hns
 
 
 Best regards
 
 mparchet
 
 Le 25 sept. 2013 à 21:32, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller h...@goldelico.com a 
 écrit :
 
 
 Am 25.09.2013 um 20:45 schrieb Stefan Monnier:
 
 I don't see reliability as a problem because it depends on what type
 of reliability you are thinking of: component, software, hardware,
 production, or availability.
 
 Small production runs means very few people have a chance of
 discovering, let alone, fixing the various problems that can show up.
 
 Production problems show almost immediately, even if there is only one
 person. And they show after making let's say 20 units. I.e. it does not need
 to produce let's say 1000 units to find real production problems. And if
 you produce 1000 and find that 5 are bad, you don't worry as much as
 if you have 2 bad in 20.
 
 
 In essence it goes to a modular approach - but modular typically drives
 cost up (at least for the version having the highest production numbers)
 and is in strong contradiction with miniaturization of handheld devices.
 
 In my part of the world, phones have been getting bigger rather than
 smaller.
 
 Only in dimensions - but they became much slimmer in the same step.
 I.e. the volume has been constant.
 
 And while modularity has a cost, it can be offset by economies
 of scale (both in terms of production as in terms of
 developping/debugging the kernel support) if that module can be reused
 in more places.  Free Software strives on standards and modularity.
 
 Of course it can. It is a matter of calculation.
 
 Also, if you can upgrade the screen and the CPU separately, you might
 attract a few other users, who aren't so interested in Freedom but do
 like the idea of customizing their phones.
 
 That is a dream that is not realistic. Every display has a different 
 connector
 (there is no standardization!). And every CPU has different signals and
 power supply needs. I.e. you can swap an OMAP3505 for an OMAP3530
 or an DM3730 but nor for an OMAP4 or OMAP5 or Snapdragon or i.MX6.
 Because they are not designed for this way of use.
 
 I'd be very happy to have a Free Phablet (and I actually wouldn't
 necessarily need it to have cell-phone connectivity, as long as VoIP
 works well), even if that's not my favorite form factor: at this stage,
 I'm willing to settle for anything smallish.
 
 It would be sufficient to bundle buying power (by summing up # of
 units for different projects), so that we get existing modules
 cheaper.  I.e. if all projects would use let's say an DM3730+Memory,
 they still can be soldered into different devices. Or  WLAN/BT and
 UMTS are already coming as SoC/MCP modules.
 
 Right.  That is a lower-leve of modularity than EOMA but it provides
 similar benefits (not only direct cost, but also developmentdebugging).
 
 So the trick is to use a bigger shopping bag and make a different meal
 out if it every day.
 
 Exactly.  The various Free Hardware communities need to pool
 their resources.
 
 Yes but I have no idea how this could happen.
 
 BR,
 Nikolaus
 
 
 ___
 Openmoko community mailing list
 community@lists.openmoko.org
 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
 
 ___
 Openmoko community mailing list
 community@lists.openmoko.org
 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
 
 
 ___
 Openmoko community mailing list
 community@lists.openmoko.org
 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-09-26 Thread Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller


Am 26.09.2013 um 11:42 schrieb Parchet Michaël:

 Hello,
 
 Can you send me the URL for GTA04A5 ?

https://shop.goldelico.com/wiki.php?page=GTA04

A5 is the board revision/variant:

http://projects.goldelico.com/p/gta04-main/page/Versions/

 
 Best regards
 
 mparchet
 
 Envoyé de mon iPhone
 
 Le 26 sept. 2013 à 11:18, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller h...@goldelico.com a 
 écrit :
 
 
 Am 26.09.2013 um 11:06 schrieb Parchet Michaël:
 
 Hello,
 
 Is there a device on production with witch I can choice the os I want 
 install or install several os (multi boot) ?
 
 Almost. The GTA04A5 can go on production (again) as soon as we get enough 
 orders.
 
 -- hns
 
 
 Best regards
 
 mparchet
 
 Le 25 sept. 2013 à 21:32, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller h...@goldelico.com 
 a écrit :
 
 
 Am 25.09.2013 um 20:45 schrieb Stefan Monnier:
 
 I don't see reliability as a problem because it depends on what type
 of reliability you are thinking of: component, software, hardware,
 production, or availability.
 
 Small production runs means very few people have a chance of
 discovering, let alone, fixing the various problems that can show up.
 
 Production problems show almost immediately, even if there is only one
 person. And they show after making let's say 20 units. I.e. it does not 
 need
 to produce let's say 1000 units to find real production problems. And if
 you produce 1000 and find that 5 are bad, you don't worry as much as
 if you have 2 bad in 20.
 
 
 In essence it goes to a modular approach - but modular typically drives
 cost up (at least for the version having the highest production numbers)
 and is in strong contradiction with miniaturization of handheld devices.
 
 In my part of the world, phones have been getting bigger rather than
 smaller.
 
 Only in dimensions - but they became much slimmer in the same step.
 I.e. the volume has been constant.
 
 And while modularity has a cost, it can be offset by economies
 of scale (both in terms of production as in terms of
 developping/debugging the kernel support) if that module can be reused
 in more places.  Free Software strives on standards and modularity.
 
 Of course it can. It is a matter of calculation.
 
 Also, if you can upgrade the screen and the CPU separately, you might
 attract a few other users, who aren't so interested in Freedom but do
 like the idea of customizing their phones.
 
 That is a dream that is not realistic. Every display has a different 
 connector
 (there is no standardization!). And every CPU has different signals and
 power supply needs. I.e. you can swap an OMAP3505 for an OMAP3530
 or an DM3730 but nor for an OMAP4 or OMAP5 or Snapdragon or i.MX6.
 Because they are not designed for this way of use.
 
 I'd be very happy to have a Free Phablet (and I actually wouldn't
 necessarily need it to have cell-phone connectivity, as long as VoIP
 works well), even if that's not my favorite form factor: at this stage,
 I'm willing to settle for anything smallish.
 
 It would be sufficient to bundle buying power (by summing up # of
 units for different projects), so that we get existing modules
 cheaper.  I.e. if all projects would use let's say an DM3730+Memory,
 they still can be soldered into different devices. Or  WLAN/BT and
 UMTS are already coming as SoC/MCP modules.
 
 Right.  That is a lower-leve of modularity than EOMA but it provides
 similar benefits (not only direct cost, but also developmentdebugging).
 
 So the trick is to use a bigger shopping bag and make a different meal
 out if it every day.
 
 Exactly.  The various Free Hardware communities need to pool
 their resources.
 
 Yes but I have no idea how this could happen.
 
 BR,
 Nikolaus
 
 
 ___
 Openmoko community mailing list
 community@lists.openmoko.org
 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
 
 ___
 Openmoko community mailing list
 community@lists.openmoko.org
 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
 
 
 ___
 Openmoko community mailing list
 community@lists.openmoko.org
 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
 
 ___
 Openmoko community mailing list
 community@lists.openmoko.org
 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community


___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-09-26 Thread Parchet Michaël

Hello,

Is there a phone or tablet with GTA04A5 ?

Thanks for your answer ?

Best regards

mparchet

 Le 26 sept. 2013 à 11:47, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller h...@goldelico.com a 
 écrit :
 
 
 Am 26.09.2013 um 11:42 schrieb Parchet Michaël:
 
 Hello,
 
 Can you send me the URL for GTA04A5 ?
 
 https://shop.goldelico.com/wiki.php?page=GTA04
 
 A5 is the board revision/variant:
 
 http://projects.goldelico.com/p/gta04-main/page/Versions/
 
 
 Best regards
 
 mparchet
 
 Envoyé de mon iPhone
 
 Le 26 sept. 2013 à 11:18, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller h...@goldelico.com a 
 écrit :
 
 
 Am 26.09.2013 um 11:06 schrieb Parchet Michaël:
 
 Hello,
 
 Is there a device on production with witch I can choice the os I want 
 install or install several os (multi boot) ?
 
 Almost. The GTA04A5 can go on production (again) as soon as we get enough 
 orders.
 
 -- hns
 
 
 Best regards
 
 mparchet
 
 Le 25 sept. 2013 à 21:32, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller h...@goldelico.com 
 a écrit :
 
 
 Am 25.09.2013 um 20:45 schrieb Stefan Monnier:
 
 I don't see reliability as a problem because it depends on what type
 of reliability you are thinking of: component, software, hardware,
 production, or availability.
 
 Small production runs means very few people have a chance of
 discovering, let alone, fixing the various problems that can show up.
 
 Production problems show almost immediately, even if there is only one
 person. And they show after making let's say 20 units. I.e. it does not 
 need
 to produce let's say 1000 units to find real production problems. And if
 you produce 1000 and find that 5 are bad, you don't worry as much as
 if you have 2 bad in 20.
 
 
 In essence it goes to a modular approach - but modular typically 
 drives
 cost up (at least for the version having the highest production numbers)
 and is in strong contradiction with miniaturization of handheld devices.
 
 In my part of the world, phones have been getting bigger rather than
 smaller.
 
 Only in dimensions - but they became much slimmer in the same step.
 I.e. the volume has been constant.
 
 And while modularity has a cost, it can be offset by economies
 of scale (both in terms of production as in terms of
 developping/debugging the kernel support) if that module can be reused
 in more places.  Free Software strives on standards and modularity.
 
 Of course it can. It is a matter of calculation.
 
 Also, if you can upgrade the screen and the CPU separately, you might
 attract a few other users, who aren't so interested in Freedom but do
 like the idea of customizing their phones.
 
 That is a dream that is not realistic. Every display has a different 
 connector
 (there is no standardization!). And every CPU has different signals and
 power supply needs. I.e. you can swap an OMAP3505 for an OMAP3530
 or an DM3730 but nor for an OMAP4 or OMAP5 or Snapdragon or i.MX6.
 Because they are not designed for this way of use.
 
 I'd be very happy to have a Free Phablet (and I actually wouldn't
 necessarily need it to have cell-phone connectivity, as long as VoIP
 works well), even if that's not my favorite form factor: at this stage,
 I'm willing to settle for anything smallish.
 
 It would be sufficient to bundle buying power (by summing up # of
 units for different projects), so that we get existing modules
 cheaper.  I.e. if all projects would use let's say an DM3730+Memory,
 they still can be soldered into different devices. Or  WLAN/BT and
 UMTS are already coming as SoC/MCP modules.
 
 Right.  That is a lower-leve of modularity than EOMA but it provides
 similar benefits (not only direct cost, but also developmentdebugging).
 
 So the trick is to use a bigger shopping bag and make a different meal
 out if it every day.
 
 Exactly.  The various Free Hardware communities need to pool
 their resources.
 
 Yes but I have no idea how this could happen.
 
 BR,
 Nikolaus
 
 
 ___
 Openmoko community mailing list
 community@lists.openmoko.org
 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
 
 ___
 Openmoko community mailing list
 community@lists.openmoko.org
 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
 
 
 ___
 Openmoko community mailing list
 community@lists.openmoko.org
 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
 
 ___
 Openmoko community mailing list
 community@lists.openmoko.org
 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
 
 
 ___
 Openmoko community mailing list
 community@lists.openmoko.org
 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-09-25 Thread Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller

Hi Stefan,

Am 25.09.2013 um 05:01 schrieb Stefan Monnier:

 The main problem I see with such Free and/or Open phone is the small
 production syndrome.  Small productions mean high prices and low
 reliability, whereas we need reasonable prices and reliability.

Yes, small production is the key problem.

I don't see reliability as a problem because it depends on what type of 
reliability
you are thinking of: component, software, hardware, production, or availability.

Each one can also be achieved with small production batches and improves
with experience of the team running such a project.

 
 So we need to focus on making larger production.  For that, we need to
 widen the target market.

Yes, this is the core idea behind the Neo900 project - find a new market
for an almost existing design and modifying it a little while sharing as many
components as possible.

In essence the Letux 3704 and Letux 7004 projects are no different from that.

  I'm not sure how best to do that, but
 I think the key is in making products that can be used in more
 situations.
 E.g. the EOMA project comes to mind: a single SoC card can potentially
 be used in various devices (tablet, router, NAS, ...).
 
 If the core part of the hardware could be shared between communities
 such as Openmoko (free phone), Raspberry, etc.. then it'd be easier to
 get that core part produced at reasonable cost, and to have a reasonably
 reliable kernel running on it.

In essence it goes to a modular approach - but modular typically drives
cost up (at least for the version having the highest production numbers)
and is in strong contradiction with miniaturization of handheld devices.

And another factor is that producing anything in higher quantities in advance
means that someone is willing to put more money on the table in advance,
not knowing if the product finally sells. I.e. the financial risk goes up.

We all know that there are 10 times as many who would like to have something
different than what is available... And sometimes nobody wants what has been
made available.

Some other thought: it must not be a module that *we* produce (like EOMA)
to get production numbers up.

It would be sufficient to bundle buying power (by summing up # of units
for different projects), so that we get existing modules cheaper. I.e. if all
projects would use let's say an DM3730+Memory, they still can be soldered
into different devices. Or WLAN/BT and UMTS are already coming as
SoC/MCP modules.

So the trick is to use a bigger shopping bag and make a different meal
out if it every day.

BR,
Nikolaus


___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-09-25 Thread Stefan Monnier

 I don't see reliability as a problem because it depends on what type
 of reliability you are thinking of: component, software, hardware,
 production, or availability.

Small production runs means very few people have a chance of
discovering, let alone, fixing the various problems that can show up.

 In essence it goes to a modular approach - but modular typically drives
 cost up (at least for the version having the highest production numbers)
 and is in strong contradiction with miniaturization of handheld devices.

In my part of the world, phones have been getting bigger rather than
smaller.  And while modularity has a cost, it can be offset by economies
of scale (both in terms of production as in terms of
developping/debugging the kernel support) if that module can be reused
in more places.  Free Software strives on standards and modularity.

Also, if you can upgrade the screen and the CPU separately, you might
attract a few other users, who aren't so interested in Freedom but do
like the idea of customizing their phones.

I'd be very happy to have a Free Phablet (and I actually wouldn't
necessarily need it to have cell-phone connectivity, as long as VoIP
works well), even if that's not my favorite form factor: at this stage,
I'm willing to settle for anything smallish.

 It would be sufficient to bundle buying power (by summing up # of
 units for different projects), so that we get existing modules
 cheaper.  I.e. if all projects would use let's say an DM3730+Memory,
 they still can be soldered into different devices. Or  WLAN/BT and
 UMTS are already coming as SoC/MCP modules.

Right.  That is a lower-leve of modularity than EOMA but it provides
similar benefits (not only direct cost, but also developmentdebugging).

 So the trick is to use a bigger shopping bag and make a different meal
 out if it every day.

Exactly.  The various Free Hardware communities need to pool
their resources.


Stefan


___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-09-25 Thread Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller


Am 25.09.2013 um 20:45 schrieb Stefan Monnier:

 I don't see reliability as a problem because it depends on what type
 of reliability you are thinking of: component, software, hardware,
 production, or availability.
 
 Small production runs means very few people have a chance of
 discovering, let alone, fixing the various problems that can show up.

Production problems show almost immediately, even if there is only one
person. And they show after making let's say 20 units. I.e. it does not need
to produce let's say 1000 units to find real production problems. And if
you produce 1000 and find that 5 are bad, you don't worry as much as
if you have 2 bad in 20.

 
 In essence it goes to a modular approach - but modular typically drives
 cost up (at least for the version having the highest production numbers)
 and is in strong contradiction with miniaturization of handheld devices.
 
 In my part of the world, phones have been getting bigger rather than
 smaller.

Only in dimensions - but they became much slimmer in the same step.
I.e. the volume has been constant.

  And while modularity has a cost, it can be offset by economies
 of scale (both in terms of production as in terms of
 developping/debugging the kernel support) if that module can be reused
 in more places.  Free Software strives on standards and modularity.

Of course it can. It is a matter of calculation.

 Also, if you can upgrade the screen and the CPU separately, you might
 attract a few other users, who aren't so interested in Freedom but do
 like the idea of customizing their phones.

That is a dream that is not realistic. Every display has a different connector
(there is no standardization!). And every CPU has different signals and
power supply needs. I.e. you can swap an OMAP3505 for an OMAP3530
or an DM3730 but nor for an OMAP4 or OMAP5 or Snapdragon or i.MX6.
Because they are not designed for this way of use.

 I'd be very happy to have a Free Phablet (and I actually wouldn't
 necessarily need it to have cell-phone connectivity, as long as VoIP
 works well), even if that's not my favorite form factor: at this stage,
 I'm willing to settle for anything smallish.
 
 It would be sufficient to bundle buying power (by summing up # of
 units for different projects), so that we get existing modules
 cheaper.  I.e. if all projects would use let's say an DM3730+Memory,
 they still can be soldered into different devices. Or  WLAN/BT and
 UMTS are already coming as SoC/MCP modules.
 
 Right.  That is a lower-leve of modularity than EOMA but it provides
 similar benefits (not only direct cost, but also developmentdebugging).
 
 So the trick is to use a bigger shopping bag and make a different meal
 out if it every day.
 
 Exactly.  The various Free Hardware communities need to pool
 their resources.

Yes but I have no idea how this could happen.

BR,
Nikolaus


___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-09-25 Thread joerg Reisenweber

On Wed 25 September 2013 21:32:13 Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
 Am 25.09.2013 um 20:45 schrieb Stefan Monnier:

 Production problems show almost immediately, even if there is only one
 person. And they show after making let's say 20 units. I.e. it does not
 need to produce let's say 1000 units to find real production problems. And
 if you produce 1000 and find that 5 are bad, you don't worry as much as if
 you have 2 bad in 20.

Yield of 995/1000? Amazing!! A Yield of 950/1000 is already considered good.
That's what PV runs (and later on production QA) are for, to determine and (if 
necessary) improve, and sustain your production yield. No users needed for 
that. Actually it would be a very poor idea to ship PV devices without tests 
to users and hope for them to find the lemons.


  Also, if you can upgrade the screen and the CPU separately, you might
  attract a few other users, who aren't so interested in Freedom but do
  like the idea of customizing their phones.
 
 That is a dream that is not realistic. Every display has a different
 connector (there is no standardization!). And every CPU has different
 signals and power supply needs. I.e. you can swap an OMAP3505 for an
 OMAP3530
 or an DM3730 but nor for an OMAP4 or OMAP5 or Snapdragon or i.MX6.
 Because they are not designed for this way of use.

Layman's idea of modularization, which never will fly in embedded. All the real 
progress made in embedded been based on new interfaces that were smarter and 
faster and smaller than the previously used ones. So it's like saying if 
Industry PC Standard Architecture had used a standardized interface (like ISA) 
then Pcs had evolved faster and were cheaper than they are today. Actually it 
needed PCI since ISA wasn't appropriate for the next generation of hardware 
technology. Same with embedded chips, just there you have like 5 duzen 
interfaces, and most chips have more than one interface, SoCs have like 20 of 
them.

/j
- 
()  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)

2013-09-24 Thread Stefan Monnier

The main problem I see with such Free and/or Open phone is the small
production syndrome.  Small productions mean high prices and low
reliability, whereas we need reasonable prices and reliability.

So we need to focus on making larger production.  For that, we need to
widen the target market.  I'm not sure how best to do that, but
I think the key is in making products that can be used in more
situations.
E.g. the EOMA project comes to mind: a single SoC card can potentially
be used in various devices (tablet, router, NAS, ...).

If the core part of the hardware could be shared between communities
such as Openmoko (free phone), Raspberry, etc.. then it'd be easier to
get that core part produced at reasonable cost, and to have a reasonably
reliable kernel running on it.


Stefan


___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-08-22 Thread Ben Wong

Well, the deadline is up. The pledges rolled in and they got $12.8
million, which sounds amazing until you see that their goal was for
$32 million. I guess that means all that money is getting refunded and
there will be no Ubuntu Edge.

Here's Shuttleworth's upbeat closing comment:
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ubuntu-edge?c=activity

I wonder if OpenPhoenix has an opportunity now, with all those
frustrated would-be buyers out there.

--B


On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Patryk Benderz patryk.bend...@esp.pl wrote:
 [cut]
 what will happen with all that funded money if Ubuntu fails to reach
 their goal?
 OK, finally found it:
 http://www.indiegogo.com/how-pricing-works-on-indiegogo

 --
 Patryk LeadMan Benderz
 Linux Registered User #377521
 ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
 /\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments


 ___
 Openmoko community mailing list
 community@lists.openmoko.org
 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-08-22 Thread Paul Wise

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Ben Wong wrote:

 I wonder if OpenPhoenix has an opportunity now, with all those
 frustrated would-be buyers out there.

Are the Ubuntu Edge specs (or something close) achievable by OpenPhoenix?

-- 
bye,
pabs

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-08-22 Thread Joshua Judson Rosen

Ben Wong lists.openmoko@wongs.net writes:

 Here's Shuttleworth's upbeat closing comment:
 http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ubuntu-edge?c=activity

 I wonder if OpenPhoenix has an opportunity now, with all those
 frustrated would-be buyers out there.

Maybe some; I'm pretty sure that there were some number of people who
actually pledged to the Ubuntu Edge campaign *because* it was clear that
the funding trigger-amount was not actually going to be reached. They
decided that it was probably important to _make a showing of support_
for the mobile-phone industry to see, even if that was all that they
were doing (what's a term for that? `guerrilla market research'?).
And it's easier to `put your money where your mouth is', even if
(especially if) you think that you can't really afford it, when you
know that you'll get your money back in a month.

-- 
'tis an ill wind that blows no minds.

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 20:22 +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Ben Wong wrote:
 
  I wonder if OpenPhoenix has an opportunity now, with all those
  frustrated would-be buyers out there.
 
 Are the Ubuntu Edge specs (or something close) achievable by OpenPhoenix?

No.  I think a better question is whether OpenPhoenix can achieve
production of *any* phone?

-- 
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)

2013-08-22 Thread Paul Wise

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Bob Ham wrote:

 No.  I think a better question is whether OpenPhoenix can achieve
 production of *any* phone?

Not currently in stock, but as I understand it, GTA04 exists and is a phone.

https://shop.goldelico.com/wiki.php?page=GTA04

-- 
bye,
pabs

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 21:10 +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Bob Ham wrote:
 
  No.  I think a better question is whether OpenPhoenix can achieve
  production of *any* phone?
 
 Not currently in stock, but as I understand it, GTA04 exists and is a phone.

The GTA04 is a motherboard, not a phone.

-- 
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)

2013-08-22 Thread Sebastian Krzyszkowiak

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Bob Ham r...@settrans.net wrote:
 On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 21:10 +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Bob Ham wrote:

  No.  I think a better question is whether OpenPhoenix can achieve
  production of *any* phone?

 Not currently in stock, but as I understand it, GTA04 exists and is a phone.

 The GTA04 is a motherboard, not a phone.

 --
 Bob Ham r...@settrans.net

 for (;;) { ++pancakes; }

Well, there are (or were) complete phones based on GTA04 available to
buy from Golden Delicious, so yes, OpenPhoenux has already achieved
production of any phone.

-- 
Sebastian Krzyszkowiak, dos
http://dosowisko.net/

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 21:19 +0200, Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:

 Well, there are (or were) complete phones based on GTA04 available to
 buy from Golden Delicious, so yes, OpenPhoenux has already achieved
 production of any phone.

The phones consisted of GTA04 motherboards inside second-hand GTA01/02
cases.  These cases were produced by Openmoko, not OpenPhoenix.

-- 
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)

2013-08-22 Thread Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller


Am 22.08.2013 um 21:28 schrieb Bob Ham:

 On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 21:19 +0200, Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:
 
 Well, there are (or were) complete phones based on GTA04 available to
 buy from Golden Delicious, so yes, OpenPhoenux has already achieved
 production of any phone.
 
 The phones consisted of GTA04 motherboards inside second-hand GTA01/02
 cases.  These cases were produced by Openmoko, not OpenPhoenix.

Producing new cases is a matter of enough money, not of capabilities...

-- hns


___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-08-22 Thread Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller


Am 22.08.2013 um 21:00 schrieb Joshua Judson Rosen:

 Ben Wong lists.openmoko@wongs.net writes:
 
 Here's Shuttleworth's upbeat closing comment:
 http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ubuntu-edge?c=activity
 
 I wonder if OpenPhoenix has an opportunity now, with all those
 frustrated would-be buyers out there.
 
 Maybe some; I'm pretty sure that there were some number of people who
 actually pledged to the Ubuntu Edge campaign *because* it was clear that
 the funding trigger-amount was not actually going to be reached. They
 decided that it was probably important to _make a showing of support_
 for the mobile-phone industry to see, even if that was all that they
 were doing (what's a term for that? `guerrilla market research'?).

Well, the mobile-phone industry thinks in Billions of $$$ and Millions of
units. Therefore 12 Mio $$$ doesn't look attractive and will not change
any of their strategies.


___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-08-22 Thread Sebastian Reinhardt


Am 22.08.2013 21:44, schrieb Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller:

Am 22.08.2013 um 21:28 schrieb Bob Ham:


On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 21:19 +0200, Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:


Well, there are (or were) complete phones based on GTA04 available to
buy from Golden Delicious, so yes, OpenPhoenux has already achieved
production of any phone.

The phones consisted of GTA04 motherboards inside second-hand GTA01/02
cases.  These cases were produced by Openmoko, not OpenPhoenix.

Producing new cases is a matter of enough money, not of capabilities...

-- hns
The case is a good topic for further discussion: A new case, espacially 
Radek's ALU case, in combination with new, easy aviailable hardware 
components, and an sunlight readable display, should make the Moko more 
attractive. Due to the PRISM's and lack of free phones, there should be 
a real chance to acquire more users.


--
Kind regards

Sebastian Reinhardt



___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 21:44 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:

  The phones consisted of GTA04 motherboards inside second-hand GTA01/02
  cases.  These cases were produced by Openmoko, not OpenPhoenix.
 
 Producing new cases is a matter of enough money, not of capabilities...

The OpenPhoenix community doesn't have enough money so the answer to
the original question of whether it can produce *any* phone is: no.

I don't mean to belittle the community or detract from the activities of
those who are actually doing but I think it's harmful to operate with a
muddled view of the situation.  The idea that it would be possible for
the community to produce a phone with the same kind of specs as the
phone that Canonical, with its billionaire owner, just tried and
*failed* to build, seems to me to be rooted in a view so detached from
reality as to be almost pathological.  To even *ask* the question shows
that there is a problem.

There are limits on what the community can do.  Engaging in
pie-in-the-sky fantasies isn't going to help.

Please allow me to address a question to the community as a whole: if
you can produce a free phone then why aren't you?  Do it!  What are you
*waiting* for?

-- 
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)

2013-08-22 Thread Sebastian Krzyszkowiak

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Bob Ham r...@settrans.net wrote:
 On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 21:19 +0200, Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:

 Well, there are (or were) complete phones based on GTA04 available to
 buy from Golden Delicious, so yes, OpenPhoenux has already achieved
 production of any phone.

 The phones consisted of GTA04 motherboards inside second-hand GTA01/02
 cases.  These cases were produced by Openmoko, not OpenPhoenix.

So what? Those are still phones. Working, functional phones which have
much better specs than GTA02. User wants a free phone, user orders a
free phone, user gets a free phone. Without the need of owning GTA02
and replacing motherboard by himself - and that's what matters.
OpenPhoenux project provides full phone.

If there'll be higher demand, it'll provide new cases. Demand is too
low right now, so old cases are used. I can't see the point of your
argument in this discussion.

-- 
Sebastian Krzyszkowiak, dos
http://dosowisko.net/

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-08-22 Thread Ed Kapitein


On 08/22/13 23:11, Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:
So what? Those are still phones. Working, functional phones which have 
much better specs than GTA02. User wants a free phone, user orders a 
free phone, user gets a free phone. Without the need of owning GTA02 
and replacing motherboard by himself - and that's what matters. 
OpenPhoenux project provides full phone. If there'll be higher demand, 
it'll provide new cases. Demand is too low right now, so old cases are 
used. I can't see the point of your argument in this discussion. 

Did anyone try to use Ubuntu on the gta04 ?
It could be a nice show case to have some video's of working gta04's 
running Ubuntu Edge.


Kind regards,
Ed



___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

2013-08-22 Thread joerg Reisenweber

On Thu 22 August 2013 21:44:13 Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
 Am 22.08.2013 um 21:28 schrieb Bob Ham:
  On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 21:19 +0200, Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:
  Well, there are (or were) complete phones based on GTA04 available to
  buy from Golden Delicious, so yes, OpenPhoenux has already achieved
  production of any phone.
  
  The phones consisted of GTA04 motherboards inside second-hand GTA01/02
  cases.  These cases were produced by Openmoko, not OpenPhoenix.
 
 Producing new cases is a matter of enough money, not of capabilities...
 
 -- hns
 

As already suggested by me[1], you also could go the other way and adapt the 
PCB shape (plus a few circuit addons like hw matrix kb) to fit into a widely 
available convenient existing case, more convenient and available than 
Openmoko shower-radio housing. Think N900 [2].
I know for sure there's a (comparatively) huge community interested in such 
device with true hw kbd and resistive touchscreen, even more so when the 
platform inside is so close to original maemo platform [3] that even porting 
maemo to gta04 gets into vicinity.

cheers
jOERG

[1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.maemo.community/5428
[2] http://www.ebay.com/bhp/nokia-n900-housing
[3] http://wiki.maemo.org/N900_Hardware_Schematic

-- 
()  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)

2013-08-22 Thread joerg Reisenweber

On Thu 22 August 2013 23:00:52 Bob Ham wrote:
 muddled view of the situation.  The idea that it would be possible for
 the community to produce a phone with the same kind of specs as the
 phone that Canonical, with its billionaire owner, just tried and
 *failed* to build, seems to me to be rooted in a view so detached from
 reality as to be almost pathological.  To even *ask* the question shows
 that there is a problem.

The only problem here is you fell for the story of the BILLIONaire(!) that 
failed to drum up ridiculous-in-his-balancebook 30some MILLIONS(!), while 
Nikolaus probably would be able to pull of same project on 10% of that budget.
Canonical big hoax, sorry! If this Shuttleguy really been interested in 
building a Edge , he'd simply DO it instead of starting nonsensical 
crowdfunding. 
Don't you see this is a marketing gag, nothing else?

/j
-- 
()  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)

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 23:20 +0200, joerg Reisenweber wrote:
 On Thu 22 August 2013 21:44:13 Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:

  Producing new cases is a matter of enough money, not of capabilities...

 As already suggested by me[1], you also could go the other way and adapt the 
 PCB shape (plus a few circuit addons like hw matrix kb) to fit into a widely 
 available convenient existing case, more convenient and available than 
 Openmoko shower-radio housing. Think N900 [2].

Nikolaus, could you release the source files for the GTA04 PCB so that
others can work on this?

-- 
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)