Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

Sat Oct 5 20:10:24 CEST 2013

On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 05:37:59PM +0000, 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 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; }

> _______________________________________________
> Openmoko community mailing list
> community at lists.openmoko.org
> http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/community/attachments/20131005/0d48df11/attachment-0001.sig>