Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

[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.  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 <rah at settrans.net>

for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/community/attachments/20131005/573a1e59/attachment.sig>