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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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 (;;) {
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
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Pascal Gosselin pas...@aeroteknic.com wrote:
If technically feasible
That's the problem.
--
Sebastian Krzyszkowiak, dos
http://dosowisko.net/
___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
On 2013-10-05 11:06 AM, Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Pascal Gosselin pas...@aeroteknic.com wrote:
If technically feasible
That's the problem.
What immediately jumps to my mind is the small number of pins for the
modules, forcing everything to be based on
On 10/05/2013 04:04 PM, Pascal Gosselin wrote:
While I understand the needs/wants of open hardware, the average
smartphone user really couldn't care less. That's the core of the
problem, lack of a large user base.
HOWEVER, what a *lot* people seem to be interested in, is an open
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.
In the last 50 years I've seen only _one_ truly modular concept for electronic
circuits that would basically meet the flexibility requirements you are asking
for:
http://makezine.com/2011/12/08/the-braun-lectron-system-retro-circuit-
dominoes/
/j
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html
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.
Am 05.10.2013 um 17:06 schrieb Sebastian Krzyszkowiak:
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Pascal Gosselin pas...@aeroteknic.com wrote:
If technically feasible
That's the problem.
++
___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
Am 05.10.2013 um 17:14 schrieb Pascal Gosselin:
On 2013-10-05 11:06 AM, Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Pascal Gosselin pas...@aeroteknic.com
wrote:
If technically feasible
That's the problem.
What immediately jumps to my mind is the small number of pins
On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 17:04:24 +0200, Pascal Gosselin
pas...@aeroteknic.com wrote:
[...]
If technically feasible, this project I believe stands the best chance
of obtaining funding as the concept has wide appeal.
Interesting long-term vision: maybe.
Short-term replacement for GTA04: no.
I
Am 05.10.2013 um 17:19 schrieb joerg Reisenweber:
In the last 50 years I've seen only _one_ truly modular concept for
electronic
circuits that would basically meet the flexibility requirements you are
asking
for:
http://makezine.com/2011/12/08/the-braun-lectron-system-retro-circuit-
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
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.
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
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.
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,
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
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
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 -
There are numerous threads on Reddit that explain very well why this is not
feasible [1,2,many]
This is bogus. It is feasible. Just not quite in the way those people
ask for it. E.g. you wouldn't have just a CPU module, and instead you'd
have a module that combines the CPU with many other
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
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
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
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
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
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
Hi,
GTAx is allready more extensible than normal smartphones because of usb
host mode. And any different fast data connector I think about might
allow an attacker to get access to your system, like the hacks with
firewire.
I also think it would be nice to have modular phone, but this is a huge
35 matches
Mail list logo
