FR at golem.de

[Michele Renda]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

vasco.nevoa at sapo.pt wrote:
> Which prompts me to ask: when FIC/OM chose this chip, what was their  
> plan? they knew that it had IP strings attached, and yet they chose it  
> anyway. They must have had some kind of plan to make it compatible  
> with "Open" philosophy. What is it?

I am not sure what about telling, so I prefer someone who know better
confirm this.

When there was the design of FR people of OM asked himself what chip to use.

There was not open alternative so they choose the most open alternative
they can get (and that can be used to a mobile plateform). The choose
went to Glamo because the 2D feature was opened and documented. And they
thinked was a good choose.

They also received the *informal* notice that glamo will in a few time
become open and full documented. But it was not happen and we all now we
pay conseguencies.

OM tried only to choose the most open solution, and, I am sorry to say
this, them was the most open solution (how much close is generally the
hardware whe have in our house).

OM was in a very difficult position, and he tried to choose the *less
sucking* way. May be he was wrong, but at least he tried.

Now OM must to stay under the NDA. If they will try to give us the info
under NDA, I think they risk a lot (big penality).

So, I think, making pessure to the firm that produce Glamo, is the only
possibility to get very open our hardware.

If someone can correct me, please do it.

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIms0SSIAU/I6SkT0RAuzVAJ9vqMzP08GXKQZMZ59VrVWM5/0FDgCgn0Ew
MCOYfUFyMVvAczAR0g2YhOc=
=Q5qN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----