"You're making a mountain out of a molehill."
Oh I agree wholeheartedly with this comment. s
On 26.08.2016 02:18, Christopher Waid wrote:
> On 2016-08-25 05:59 AM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:
>> On 25.08.2016 11:42, Christopher Waid wrote:
>>> I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. Wake me when you've
>>> actually contributed something of significance and aren't just trying to
> I disagree again. There is LIBREBOOT
"LIBREBOOT" is not hardware.
The rest of your post is the same FUD as before, just with more SHOUTING.
> You suggested this at a time when it is basically impossible for demands to
be met
I disagree. It only takes few minutes to write an update which states the
deadline for the free PCB design sources release (demand #1) and a guarantee
that the sources will ship with the product (demand
I have already responded to your FUD regarding EOMA68 elsewhere. (By the way,
very mature of you to change your avatar to that FUD.) However:
> claiming your
> proprietary BIOS laptops and desktops are OK
> corrupting FSF to
> recommend your proprietary BIOS laptops and desktops
I have never
I'm going to be completely honest: I'm not using the "-1" button (I never
do), but if someone were to use it on a post which is essentially nothing
more than FUD, I wouldn't harshly criticize them.
> By the way, does anyone here know the situation with the laptop housing? Is
it libre hardware?
The A20 computer card is the only piece of hardware that has not had
everything possible released under a libre license. Even the keyboard on the
laptop housing has libre firmware, if I
> Yet another MISINFORMATION. I never told anyone to not back the EOMA68
campaign.
But you did. You suggested to backers and potential backers, and I quote,
"Demand the above conditions are met for further backing the crowdfunding
campaign." You suggested this at a time when it is
After thinking about this for a while I do agree that this does not satisfy
common requirements for libre hardware currently. After all, if I wanted to
manufacture the computer card I would not be able to do so.
However on my personal opinion I think that this is like putting the cart
On 25.08.2016 11:42, Christopher Waid wrote:
> I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. Wake me when you've
> actually contributed something of significance and aren't just trying to
> undermine those working on solving these problems. For some of us it
> isn't about financial gain. We
> You're really grasping at straws here to claim that this is "indirect". The
wording is very clear: the PCB CAD files for the computer card are not being
released at this time.
I never said this statement is not "clear". But again, this is not DIRECTLY
saying the computer design is not
I think it's important these issues be discussed. Let's all remain polite
when doing so even if we come to different conclusions. Also please don't -1
a post unless it's spam.
> Saying ["]PCB CAD files for the Computer Card is the only exception to this
rule to release everything in advance["] isn't ["]PCB CAD files for the
Computer Card are not free.["]
You're really grasping at straws here to claim that this is "indirect". The
wording is very clear: the PCB
Saying
PCB CAD files for the Computer Card is the only exception to this rule to
release everything in advance
isn't
PCB CAD files for the Computer Card are not free.
or
our Computer Card is not libre hardware while the rest of our laptop (the
case!?) is.
I hope everyone sane can make
> They don't say directly that the Computer itself(!) is not free-design PCB
Now you're just talking out of your ass. How is literally saying that the
design is unavailable, right at the same place where it's mentioned that all
the other designs are available, not direct?
> meaning their
They don't say directly that the Computer itself(!) is not free-design PCB,
meaning their Computer is Not libre hardware (at least not yet and a deadline
hasn't been given). No, they claim that their Computer is and has always been
libre hardware from the beginning. That's hypocrisy. And
I don't see why people should demand circuit design if they have not even
received the hardware yet. They are not "buying" a computer card, they are
supporting it's development.
Personally I see no problem with the design files not being made with free
software. For one, kicad is absolutely
> indirectly
That statement is not "indirect". It explicitly states exactly what is being
withheld.
> exception to hardware freedom for the Computer itself
OK, let's get this straight:
The freedom of the users has absolutely nothing to do with the design file of
the computer card.
Saying indirectly that they have made an exception to hardware freedom for
the Computer itself(!) while still claiming their Computer "has been libre
hardware right from the beginning" is outrageous and indeed should make
people angry on them, not on me. People should demand the circuit
> I wonder then what he is waiting for...
It's explained under the "A Libre Approach" section on the campaign page:
"The only exception to this rule to release everything in advance is the PCB
CAD files for the Computer Card. We’re planning to release the PCB CAD
files for the Computer card
> It's ironical that they point fingers to other projects that claim their
hardware to be "libre hardware" even though it's not libre when you look more
closely.
First of all, that statement is about claims of being "open", not "libre".
But that's a fairly minor point. Here's what really
The misleading information in the Parabola project's news originates in the
misleading information in the EOMA68 campaign page. I believe I have quoted
several times already this statement:
"This project has been extremely unusual in that it has been a Libre Hardware
and Software project
tct, that original email is about misleading information in the Parabola
project's news post. It has nothing to do with anything lkcl has done and is
supportive of the project.
So what you are saying is that he can make it fully libre anytime?
Hmm...
I wonder then what he is waiting for...
Well... I really hope he succeeds and does make it libre.
I apologize if I snapped, I just really like the idea behind his design.
Think of it, A laptop with two internal usb
You may be right on the desktop end but I doubt it on the laptop end.
I was of course speaking about emissions/ battery life waste. Though to be
honest...
I don't believe that these devices are more environmentally friendly than say
some desktop computer or laptop. But they do appear to be designed for
"upgrade-ability". I think running some desktop for 15 years is much better
than buying one of these every 5 years and handing it to someone
To answer your question, PaulK is not the main developer of Libreboot, that's
Leaw Rowe:
https://libreboot.org/contrib/
Actually, Libreboot project and its main developer support the EOMA68
crowdfunding campaign to have this board mass produced. You can read it on
the project's main page:
Well, Is it the main libreboot developer?
Just curious...
I mean, What is important for right now, is that Luke is trying to get this
to work.
On an unrelated note though...
It seems to me that there could be a rivalry in other groups... not entirely
sure...
It is possible.
I myself
It's not me who have raised this issue, it's PaulK, Replicant and Libreboot
developer. Almost 10 days ago, on Aug 15.
https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004341.html
I looked for facts and agreed with Paul. People in the Parabola (distro
preinstalled on Libre Tea version of
The designs will be released under a free license. Bitching on the project
like that because of nothing, during the most important period of the
campaign... what a weak move, tct.
On 24.08.2016 20:18, Christopher Waid wrote:
> When this text was written LibreBoot didn't exist
I beg to differ. The text we refer to is from summer 2014 after
SouthEast GNU/Linux Fest 2014 took place on June 20-22, 2014.
I would definitely contribute the little I have to a free-design circuit
board which also respects software freedom, but sadly EOMA68 board doesn't
have a free-design circuit and it's an error to think the project leader "is
trying to make EOMA68 [board] 100% libre", given the fact he has
I must say, I think what is more important is that Luke is trying to make
EOMA 100% Libre.
Unlike purism, he does at least care. I think we should focus on that and
fund him till he gets 100%.
Then most likely, he will fix the rest of the hardware non-libre stuff.
Keep in mind this is as
Please note that in my previous message and in all my messages on this issue
(including Parabola mailing list) I wrote "it's not free-design hardware",
which is not the same with "it's proprietary-design hardware". EOMA68
campaign states that the project (including circuit design) it's
As far as I understood lkcl keeps part of the files needed for producing the
circuit boards unpublished until later on. They are NOT under a proprietary
license. That would require them to be published first.
Moreover even though he used a proprietary software for designing, that's
his,
The debate on the term "free software friendly" is secondary to the main
topic of the thread quoted here. The consensus reached on Parabola mailing
list is that we should avoid and teach others to avoid using the term "free
software friendly" and Richard Stallman also agreed:
So, what parts of the design are not free software friendly? I can think of
the GPU. Are some controllers still requiring non-free software?
This is the original thread being referenced:
https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004341.html
Just now, I **have** subscribed to Parabola's dev mailing list. So I'll
try to catch-up with this topic. :)
I'm inserting libreplanet-discuss and trisquel-users mailing lists as
recipients of this email because of my opinion on Tiberiu-Cezar
Tehnoetic's message
39 matches
Mail list logo
