Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

[Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller]

Am 05.10.2013 um 21:05 schrieb Bob Ham:

> On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 20:10 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 05:37:59PM +0000, Bob Ham wrote:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> I disagree.  I've quoted a number of different bodies on their idea of
> what constitutes open hardware and they all concur.

And I claim the right to have another idea. We are not in "1984".

> 
> Meanwhile:
> 
> On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 07:50 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>> And for me any printout that I can read is open source.
> 
> Nikolaus goes by his own definitions, regardless of what is generally
> accepted.  

I have never been asked to "accept" such a definition as binding. And
probably nobody else.

So it is not "generally accepted".

Rather there are some organizations that called themselves "open hardware something".
And are pushing forward "Freedoms". And members and supporters of that
organizations have of course accepted their definitions. But can they define
what "open hardware" is? They can define it for themselves.

And let me ask:
which organization are you representing in this discussion?
Or are you talking as a private person?

> We've even got people making up their own meaningless
> phrases:
> 
> On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 14:07 +0200, Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote:
>> In my dictionary, it's definitely free platform. 
> 
> The way I see it, on one hand there is a bunch of individuals on a
> mailing list with their own ideas about what the phrase "open hardware"
> should refer to, and on the other hand there are a number of
> well-organised bodies with clear definitions which are not only in
> accord with each other but with (1) the open hardware community that I
> know and (2) the principles of the free software movement and the open
> source community, the progenitors of those bodies.
> 
> ==
>> "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.
> 
> The people here seem to have their own meanings.  Everybody else seems
> to have a pretty consistent idea about what constitutes "open hardware".

Please send me a list of "everybody else".

And don't forget: even the majority may be wrong...

I think here on this list we have a quite long track record of experiences
with these topics. Maybe one of the longest.

> You're right though, there is no trade mark.  I would hope that by
> clearly demonstrating how Nikolaus's ideas conflict with the basic ideas
> of the open hardware community, he will respect the fact that there is
> an incompatibility and refrain from misrepresenting his product.

It now looks to me as some group of people tries to capture the term
"open hardware" (althoug they mean "free hardware") and that is
something we have to fight against - in the name of freedom...

> 
> 
> ==
>> 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"
> 
> The quotations from license are there as evidence of the principles of
> the free software movement and the open source community.  Licenses are
> explicit manifestations of the ideas and motivations behind these
> groups.  If you want to find out what the open source community or the
> free software movement believes, the licenses they create are the place
> to go.
> 
> What we see when look at those expressions of principles is a common
> theme of requiring source code to be in the preferred form for making
> modifications.  This idea has been inherited by the open hardware
> community.  The inheritance is expressed in the Open Source Hardware
> Definition and elsewhere.

Again you are mixing Open and Free. Please make yourself familiar with
the distinction.

Hint: I can "open" my "closed" book without any license. But I need a licence
to guarantee a CopyLeft.

I.e. closed - open is a description of the ability to get information
closed/open - free is a licence definition

> To me, those people who disagree are not part of the open hardware
> community.

Haha. It is quite easy to denounce and ban those with a different
opinion (1984 again?).

>  They're part of some other community which does not share
> the principles of the open design movement.

Please, please start to make the distinction between Free and Open!

>  And in fact, Nikolaus
> admits as much:
> 
> On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 09:11 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>> I simply don't believe in the "Free Hardware" ideology. 

> 
> ==
>> Your accusations sounds like if Nikolaus is using OHANDA clearly defined
>> label without fulfilling requirements defined by OHANDA.
> 
> Well, I'm not sure how you get that impression.  

To me it is very clear. You request not to use the label "open hardware".

> It's not like it's a
> matter of adherence to a collection of finely detailed criteria.

What else?

> Nikolaus denies access to the source files for his hardware.  It's not a
> subtle conflict.  It flies in the face of the open hardware movement.

Why? You still have not answered what you would do with the source
files.

BTW: we did design the GTA04 with the PDFs of the schematics of
the GTA01, GTA02 and the BeagleBoard. The sources were either
not available to us (GTA0x) or useless (BeagleBoard - they use a
completely different EDA tool).

And let's go through the OHANDA freedoms:

- Freedom 0: The freedom to use the device for any purpose.

yes, that is possible, because we provide schematics so that you
can study which GPIO is doing what. This enables people to port
new operating systems opening new purposes.

- Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the device works and change it to make it to do what you wish. Access to the complete design is precondition to this.

yes, you can do it almost. You are probably not able to make
changes to the GTA04 board in practice because you need
extraordinary skills and expensive tools. I.e. more detailled
EDA data won't help if you are in trouble elsewhere.

- Freedom 2: Redistribute the device and/or design (remanufacture).

That is not possible - and not intended. Because it would
make it even more difficult to get big enough production batches
and help to finance the development and development of
new devices.

That is the reason why we do not apply for it.

- Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the device and/or design, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the complete design is precondition to this.

Yes, you can run your own GTA0x project based on the GTA01/02/04
documentation and can release your improvements to the public.
Nobody is stopping you from doing it.

Here I disagree with the requirement "Access to the complete
design is precondition to this.".

I just need the schematics on printed paper or PDF. A component
placement sheet is helpful, but not 100% required. Such a process
is called "reverse engineering".

And, the more you change, the less you need the complete design.
And you can simply *replace* the incomplete design parts.

So again, what do you *need* the files for?

> To be honest, I'm dumbfounded that there can be any confusion over it.

Well, then the open hardware movement you are representing isn't open
to other opinions and definitions (e.g. difference between "open" and "free").

Sorry, but in summary your argumentations looks quite like a dictatorship
to me and not an area of freedom (hiding behind the word "open").

-- hns