Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

[Bob Ham]

On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 20:16 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> Am 04.10.2013 um 19:48 schrieb Bob Ham:

> > I don't think FSF has a definition of "Free Hardware".  Possibly we're
> > ascribing different meanings to the phrase.
> 
> Yes they have one and even do a certification (which would not be
> possible with a definition):
> 
> http://www.fsf.org/news/endorsement-criteria
> http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Hardware/Certification_criteria

They don't use the term "Free Hardware" to describe what they're
endorsing.


> >  I'm using "Free Hardware"
> > to refer to free or libre hardware with the four freedoms, as described
> > by the (unfortunately named) Open Source Hardware and Design Alliance:
> > 
> >  http://www.ohanda.org/
> > 
> >> All of them have been as open as it could be practically done at the moment
> >> when some design decisions had to be made.
> > 
> > You've previously said that the reason you refuse to release the
> > hardware source files, making the device more "open", is because you
> > expect money in return.  Are you now saying restricting access to the
> > hardware source files is somehow a "design decision"?
> 
> ???
> 
> I already told you that the hardware source files are open and public.

The source files are not public.  The only thing that is public is a PDF
file containing bitmap images generated from other (Eagle?) source
files.  The other source files themselves are not available.

I don't understand how you can maintain that the source files are
public.


> Just not in the format you would like to see them but you are free to
> convert them.

You don't seem to understand that the difference in "format" is
critical.  It is the difference that prevents the GTA04 being described
as free hardware.

By your logic, all binary software executables are "open" because the
"format" can be converted into assembler.  While it may be true that one
can disassemble binaries and modify the resulting assembler, this is not
what we're referring to by the phrase "free software".

Similarly, the GTA04 is not "free hardware".


And by the way, I looked into your idea of scanning PCB schematics.
It's bogus.  I tried to see whether any suitable software was available
but here's what I found instead:

  "there is no direct way to translate pure graphical data to an
  intelligent schematic, EDA schematics contain a lot of intelligent
  information that simply is not available on a sheet of paper"
http://www.edaboard.com/thread8258.html

  "No, nothing like that exists. ... Such a tool would be difficult to
  create, and impossible to realistically support considering the
  multitude of ways even a single IC could be represented. ... In short,
  it's unrealistic."
http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/66432/any-research-to-turn-schematics-as-a-picture-into-a-simulation



> Here I am referring to the typical discussion about binary blobs and
> firmware drivers - because we decide(d) to use chips we can buy.

You're obviously using the phrase "free hardware" to mean hardware that
can run with entirely free software.  This seems to be non-normal usage.
For example, see

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_Freedom_Day


-- 
Bob Ham <rah at settrans.net>

for (;;) { ++pancakes; }


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/community/attachments/20131004/55af6cc0/attachment.sig>