Crowdfunding an Ubuntu smartphone (right now)

[Balint Szente]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but this is getting extremely boring and
totally off-topic. For a week or more the same things are repeated again
and again for no reason. This leads nowhere.

I would kindly ask you to continue in private, if you want to
philosophize about linguistics and etymology. Let us keep this mailing
list technical, please.

Thank you,
Balint

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 18:23:31 +0000
Bob Ham <rah at settrans.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 08:48 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> 
> > PS: I have found an old definition of "Open Hardware" from 1999.
> > IMHO well thought and interesting to read...
> > 
> > http://www.opencollector.org/Whyfree/definitions.html
> > http://www.opencollector.org/Whyfree/
> > 
> > If we had known this before, we could have saved this long flamewar.
> 
> I find this extraordinarily hypocritical.  One day you say this:
> 
> 
> On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 20:52 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> 
> > And, please give me the officially approved definition of "Open
> > Hardware" by ISO or some other official standardization body. If
> > that exists, I will follow it. Otherwise there are several personal
> > definitions.
> 
> On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 22:00 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> > And I claim the right to have another idea. We are not in "1984".
> 
> > 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...
> 
> 
> > 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").
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
>