Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

[Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller]

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? They lack this disctinction.

For Software it is very common to make the disctinction between "Free" and
"Open". Otherwise the GPL would have no differentiation to other Open Source
licenses.

> 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/

Again, they call themselves "Open Hardware and Design Alliance", although
they talk about "Free Hardware" and the 1-3 Freedoms.

And, we are not member of Ohanda and have no plans to get a certification.

> The idea that a circuit schematic in bitmap form constitutes the source
> for open hardware is fallacious.

But please prove that it is closed. I.e. lacking any information you need.

And tell me what you really need the source files for.

Are you really able to do something with it? I.e. design a GTA05 out of it?
Fix bugs? Get the production cost problem solved?

Otherwise I don't see and benefit for you or anybody else. And no benefit
for me if nobody can make use out of it.

> 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

Yes, we have this co-creation. But not in the global public. Several
users of a GTA02 helped to design it.

BTW: you can't develop and certify a device like the GTA0x if there is
no private company involved. Because CE, FCC etc. and contracts
with suppliers needs a legal entity to run the operation.

> What you're doing is nothing to do with open hardware.  

It has nothing to do with "Free 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".


No. It would obviously different if we would pretend that we have an OHANDA label:

http://www.ohanda.org:

"OHANDA is an initiative to foster sustainable sharing of open hardware and design. The proposed solution with OHANDA is a label in the sense of a non-registered trademark. The label will connect the 4 Freedoms with any kind of physical device through OHANDA and make the openness visable to everyone. Think the label like other common certificates such as FCC or CE mark."

But we don't claim that.

So in summary, please stop to mix "Free Hardware" and "Open Hardware" and help
to get it into the heads of organizations that do mix it up.

-- hns