[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

From: Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 23:04:26 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.8.0

Ali, thanks for your arguments. Schematics don't make a hardware
free-design hardware, as PaulK has stated and as Richard's essay
explains. It's the PCB design sources. Schematics are usually PDF files.

I doubt any of the people who now hold the EOMA68-A20 computer boards
would disobey the project's leader(s) and share the PCB design sources,
if they have them at all. And definitely they are not legally allowed to
share them under a free license such as GPLv3+.

On 26.08.2016 22:43, Ali Razeen wrote:
> Hi all,
> I’m not even sure that it’s imprecise to say that it is “free from the very 
> beginning.” However, since my reasoning may be wrong, let me write it below 
> and you folk can point out my mistakes.
> To quote Christopher: “Everybody who has the devices has the schematics and 
> rights thereof.” Suppose that the *only* ones who have the hardware are 
> people within the EOMA68 and ThinkPenguin groups, and suppose that they have 
> the designs and source code. That is enough to say that it has been a libre 
> hardware from the beginning (which is T1 from Tiberiu-Cezar’s email). Sure, 
> it might not be useful to anyone else since it wasn’t released to anyone but 
> it’s still libre to the people with the devices and they can release it 
> should they wish to.
> There are two ways I can think of to defeat this argument.
> 1) We can ask a person who has the hardware whether they have the rights to 
> distribute it and the rights to ask for the PCB designs. If the answer to 
> both is “no”, then it is not “libre from the very beginning.” But if the 
> answer to both is “yes”, then the project is indeed “libre from the very 
> beginning."
> 2) As per Tiberiu-Cezar’s email, we can object to this on the grounds that we 
> do not have proof of their claim. I don’t have a clear reply to this except 
> to ask what kind of proof can we reasonably expect? Christopher has already 
> said that “Everybody who has the devices has the schematics and the rights 
> thereof.”. I, personally, don’t have any reason to not trust that statement. 
> But let’s say I don’t trust Christopher and that I still lack proof of the 
> claim. Would that be grounds for me to claim that the statement “libre from 
> the very beginning” to be misleading. Some stronger words were used but I 
> will not repeat them here. Perhaps the most we can say is that the claim 
> “libre from the very beginning” is unverifiable. Such a claim is far less 
> problematic.
> What do you think Tiberiu-Cezar? (By the way, how should I address you? 
> Tiberiu, Tiberiu-Cezar, or something else? I’m sorry for my cultural 
> ignorance!)
> Best,
> Ali
>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 2:48 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) 
>> <> wrote:
>> (I forgot to reply to all lists… Sorry.)
>> It seems the problem is the meaning of “libre” in terms of unreleased
>> hardware/software. EOMA68 certainly is aligned with libre culture and
>> significant for freedom because of its modularity standard. It also is
>> GPL-compliant like any unreleased product, but this does not mean much.
>> I believe the claim that it is “free from the very beginning” is
>> imprecise but not deceptive and *not a problem* if all available sources
>> will eventually be released.
>> A clear promise to release what is missing would seem fair though.
>> Regards,
>> Florian Pelz

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]