Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller hns at goldelico.com
Sat Oct 5 07:50:49 CEST 2013


Am 04.10.2013 um 21:26 schrieb Bob Ham:

> On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 20:16 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>> Am 04.10.2013 um 19:48 schrieb Bob Ham:
> 
>>> I don't think FSF has a definition of "Free Hardware".  Possibly we're
>>> ascribing different meanings to the phrase.
>> 
>> Yes they have one and even do a certification (which would not be
>> possible with a definition):
>> 
>> http://www.fsf.org/news/endorsement-criteria
>> http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Hardware/Certification_criteria
> 
> They don't use the term "Free Hardware" to describe what they're
> endorsing.

Yes, you are right.

> 
> 
>>> I'm using "Free Hardware"
>>> to refer to free or libre hardware with the four freedoms, as described
>>> by the (unfortunately named) Open Source Hardware and Design Alliance:
>>> 
>>> http://www.ohanda.org/
>>> 
>>>> All of them have been as open as it could be practically done at the moment
>>>> when some design decisions had to be made.
>>> 
>>> You've previously said that the reason you refuse to release the
>>> hardware source files, making the device more "open", is because you
>>> expect money in return.  Are you now saying restricting access to the
>>> hardware source files is somehow a "design decision"?
>> 
>> ???
>> 
>> I already told you that the hardware source files are open and public.
> 
> The source files are not public.  The only thing that is public is a PDF
> file containing bitmap images generated from other (Eagle?) source
> files.  The other source files themselves are not available.

Yes.

> I don't understand how you can maintain that the source files are
> public.

If I remember there was a printout of the ssl code on paper, exported as a book
from the US and then typed in again by volunteers to found openssl.

Was it non.open source?

>> Just not in the format you would like to see them but you are free to
>> convert them.
> 
> You don't seem to understand that the difference in "format" is
> critical.  It is the difference that prevents the GTA04 being described
> as free hardware.

Yes, I don't really understand, because I don't care that much about sophistry
and ideology. I want to get things materialize.

And for me any printout that I can read is open source. A missing printout
is closed source. Tertium non datur.

> 
> By your logic, all binary software executables are "open" because the
> "format" can be converted into assembler.  While it may be true that one
> can disassemble binaries and modify the resulting assembler, this is not
> what we're referring to by the phrase "free software".

> 
> Similarly, the GTA04 is not "free hardware".
> 
> 
> And by the way, I looked into your idea of scanning PCB schematics.
> It's bogus.  I tried to see whether any suitable software was available
> but here's what I found instead:
> 
>  "there is no direct way to translate pure graphical data to an
>  intelligent schematic, EDA schematics contain a lot of intelligent
>  information that simply is not available on a sheet of paper"
> http://www.edaboard.com/thread8258.html
> 
>  "No, nothing like that exists. ... Such a tool would be difficult to
>  create, and impossible to realistically support considering the
>  multitude of ways even a single IC could be represented. ... In short,
>  it's unrealistic."
> http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/66432/any-research-to-turn-schematics-as-a-picture-into-a-simulation

> 
>> Here I am referring to the typical discussion about binary blobs and
>> firmware drivers - because we decide(d) to use chips we can buy.
> 
> You're obviously using the phrase "free hardware" to mean hardware that
> can run with entirely free software.  This seems to be non-normal usage.

> For example, see
> 
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_Freedom_Day

Hm. That doesn't tell me much.

Neither the Openmoko, OpenPandora, Ubuntu Edge, GTA04 are
"open hardware" - and never were intended to be. They are
"well documented hardware for free and open software".

Generally, I agree with jOERG's comments.

If you don't like this situation, start your own project and make it
"open hardware" (in your definition), but don't expect us to do that
step for you.

-- hns


More information about the community mailing list