Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

[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.

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.  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".

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.


==
> 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.

To me, those people who disagree are not part of the open hardware
community.  They're part of some other community which does not share
the principles of the open design movement.  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.  It's not like it's a
matter of adherence to a collection of finely detailed criteria.

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


-- 
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/20131005/f8cfb119/attachment.sig>