Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

[EdorFaus]

On 10/09/2013 08:10 PM, Bob Ham wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 08:42 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>> 1. you are talking about "open SOURCE hardware" (which I call "free hardware")
>
> No.  I've explicitly refrained from distinguishing between such labels
> because I'm aware that they are not as well defined in the domain of
> hardware as they are in the domain of software.

As far as I have been able to tell, you have been arguing the entire 
time from the position that the terms *are* well defined, and that 
therefore the project should be using those definitions.

Now you are suddenly saying that the terms *aren't* well defined, which 
is a contradiction of that position.

This appears to me to be either an admission that your position is 
incorrect, or an admission that you are being hypocritical (like you 
accused Nikolaus of being).


(Note also that you just admitted that you can't use arguments from the 
software domain, since you said that it has different definitions of the 
terms than the hardware domain does (even if they're similar). This 
holds even if you argue that the "as" in "as well" is important.)


On 10/09/2013 08:23 PM, Bob Ham wrote:
> And the next day, when you've found an old definition that accords with
> your view, suddenly that one definition would have obviated any
> discussion.

I understood that as being not because *he* needed such a definition to 
follow, but because it appears that *you* do. Basically, that you 
apparently want everybody to follow a known definition, and this shows 
that they are - which could have saved us a lot of this thread (assuming 
you accepted the definition as a valid one, and aren't arguing just to 
argue).

(Disclaimer: I haven't actually read that definition (yet), just going 
by what I've seen in this thread.)

I also don't really see the contradiction you claim is present in the 
out-of-context snippets you posted, but that might just be me.

-- 
Regards,
Frode Austvik