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)
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)
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)
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)
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: The open hardware phone project that's had the most interest
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 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: The open hardware phone project that's had the most interest
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 serial interfaces. It's probably not realistic to be able to change a CPU module that way for example. Dicy for a camera module too. But for tons of other I/O applications, I think it's quite feasible. The guy behind this seems hesitant to bring it to Kickstarter. Maybe he's got VC plans instead. Maybe he has no plans... ! -Pascal ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: The open hardware phone project that's had the most interest
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 architecture MODULAR smartphone that could be customized. You want a bigger battery ? A better GPS ? A better camera ? Audio/video inputs ? Discrete inputs ? Serial ports ? Ethernet ? Absolutely ! Close to 900,000 people have indicated current interest in making this happen. http://www.phonebloks.com/ Unfortunately, it seems the technical understanding of the people involved is limited. This is basically at the level of a 5-year-old trying to design a car. 'Ok - it needs wheels and doors and a ball-pit'. Without the knowledge of what the transmission or suspension is. There are many challenges to making modular systems. Let's consider a module - and not even go into specifics. Firstly - you need to make it a given size - or it won't fit into the phone. This means that either you make the modules large, and may waste space in them, or you make them small, and risk stuff not fitting. Secondly, you add costs. This starts at the connector(s) - fine pitch very dense connectors are expensive! Especially if they need to deal with RF - and fragile. Another cost is overcapacity - if you have a phone, you can design the power supply to be adequate. Overdesigning it to cope with upgrades costs money. Now we run into the issue of reliability - part of the reason modern phones are comparatively reliable is they have almost no connectors. Certainly none that require mating/unmating by the user. Now, you also need to pay for extra antistatic components on each end of the module interface, a case for the module, a place in the phone for the module to fit in, and mechanical support so it doesn't fall out. Then the issue of antennas arises. Can it be done - sure! Will it be twice the price, twice the weight, a quarter of the reliability - very likely. ___ 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: The open hardware phone project that's had the most interest
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 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 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: The open hardware phone project that's had the most interest
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 http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: The open hardware phone project that's had the most interest
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 for the modules, forcing everything to be based on serial interfaces. Look at what MIPI.org has defined since 10 years. Display, Camera, Modem are all serial interfaces to use less wires. But nobody (not Apple or Samsung or HTC or Motogoogle or Micronokiasoft) has done a modular device. It's probably not realistic to be able to change a CPU module that way for example. Dicy for a camera module too. But for tons of other I/O applications, I think it's quite feasible. The guy behind this seems hesitant to bring it to Kickstarter. Maybe he's got VC plans instead. Maybe he has no plans... ! I would assume that his plan is to get publicity for his person. Not for the project. Promise people infinite life or flying to the moon and they will follow... -- hns ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: The open hardware phone project that's had the most interest
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 posted this on the OpenPhoenux list recently: There are numerous threads on Reddit that explain very well why this is not feasible [1,2,many] The (imho) most important ones in short: * Mechanical modularity increases size and cost, makes it harder to create a beautiful phone, and is not in the manufacturer's commercial interests. Therefore, it would be hard to find companies/customers to build/buy this. * Many current components are highly integrated - SoCs, sensor ICs, Display/Touchscreen, etc. Making these modular would require development of many new components (and would increase size, cost, power consumption). * The concept assumes that all components use a common communication backplane. This is not feasible, as a variety of voltages and communication protocols are in use in a typical phone (I2C, SPI, UART, USB, various display protocols, etc.). Many components need very short connections to the CPU/GPU/whatever without crossing other PCB traces. It is not realistic to make this work with a generic communication backplane. Proper heat dissipation for CPU/GPU is another problem. In summary, while it is certainly feasible to build a modular phone (look at David Mellis' DIY cellphone [3]), doing so for current hardware would involve major engineering effort (== design and manufacture dozens of new chips) and would result in less stable, more expensive, and less beautiful phones requiring more power. Raphael [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/gadgets/comments/1m6y1q/that_phonebloks_things_annoyed_me_so_here_are_17/ [2] http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1m4pmy/eli5_why_is_phonebloks_a_bad_idea/ [many] http://www.reddit.com/r/all/search?q=phonebloksrestrict_sr=on [3] http://hlt.media.mit.edu/?p=2182 -- Dipl.-Medieninf. Raphael Wimmer Wiss. Mitarbeiter / Research Assistant Doktorand / PhD student Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München E-Mail: raphael.wim...@ifi.lmu.de LFE Medieninformatik Skype: real_raphman Amalienstr. 17 / Raum 206WWW: http://www.medien.ifi.lmu.de 80333 MünchenTel:+49 (89) 2180-4659 Germany Fax:+49 (89) 2180-99-4659 ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: The open hardware phone project that's had the most interest
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- dominoes/ My father did own one - unfortunately I don't know where it is now. -- hns ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)
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)
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: The open hardware phone project that's had the most interest
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 things. So the whole phone would be made up of very few modules: a case, a screen, a battery, and one or two electronics modules. And it would be bulkier and more expensive than a non-modular phone, of course. I for one would be willing to pay twice as much for such a phone, even if it's twice as thick. Stefan ___ 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 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)
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)
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)
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: The open hardware phone project that's had the most interest
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 goal and seems to need serious research and many iterations of practise before you are happy with it. Regards, Kai ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
