2014-05-26 15:49 GMT+02:00 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net>:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 2:11 PM, mike.valk@gmail.com
<mike.valk@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2014-05-26 0:22 GMT+02:00 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net>:
>
>> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Jonathan Frederickson
>> <silverskullpsu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hey all. I've been following the progress here for a while, though I
>> > wasn't subscribed at the time. Something Luke said a while back
>> > concerned me, however:
>> >
>> > "so i am very sorry to have to spell it out, but you will *never* be a
>> > customer of *any* EOMA or QiMod products, *ever*, and you will *never*
>> > be granted a license to make EOMA-compatible products.  and that's not
>> > my decision, but we both have to live with that."
>> >
>> > I can understand being blacklisted as a customer, and removing all
>> > mention of EOMA, as it is (maybe?)
>>
>>  not maybe: is.  why would you question that?
>>
>> > a QiMod trademark. However, the bit
>> > about being granted a license to make EOMA-compatible products is
>> > troubling.
>>
>>  jon: you may not have been following the discussions from the past
>> couple of years.
>>
>>  you may have not seen the scenario discussions where 3rd parties get
>> the standard so badly wrong that they destroy not only the reputation
>> of the EOMA standards but also create short-circuits that cause fires,
>> destruction of personal property and possibly end up killing people.
>>
>>  do you want that possibility to occur?
>>
>>  if not, what solution would you offer?
>>
>>  please, before saying "this is troubling" actually think it through.
>> if you can come up with an alternative strategy please describe it.
>
>
> The scary thought is that the EOMA standard might not get off because
> someone hogs to
> 1. Requires a unworkable fee to become compliant

well, think it through mike.  if the goal is "make use of free
software community and join them with factories" and a high fee
prevents and prohibits the free software community from being able to
participate, then that destroys the goal, doesn't it?

I Know what your intentions are. I believe in them. And I believe "Rhombus-Tech" won't hog it. It would be counter productive.

I was just playing "devils-advocate", I read "Ban" and "Remove EOMA from all public notion" and "Never, ever". And I think so did others, and expressed/felt some fear from recent events

You drew a hard-line, probably a good one, the idea needs to be protected. It just needs clarification were the line is drawn. We walking uncharted territory here. FUD is a powerful enemy.
 
  so on that basis, what would you rate the chances of quotes high fees
quotes being involved?


> 2. Others may get blocked purly on ego

 that would be genuinely stupid.  as you probably know i am pretty
pathological about decision-making when it comes to achieving specific
goals.  things like "ego" don't come into it.  i assess "is this going
to further the goal, yes or no" and that really is the end of it:
there *is* no "this person is a dick therefore they are out".  they
can be as much of a dick as they like, as long as they get results
that don't jeapordise the goal.

  at some point i want a foundation, and a charter that i am happy
will be able to continue without my input - i will have other things
to do.  we are however looking at like 3-5 years into the future.

I put on my vote for confidence in you and "Rhombus-Tech" to protect the standard. Whatever the weight of that vote may be.
 

> If there is a "guide to EOMA compliancy", nobody should be to worried.

 good idea.  can i ask you a favour of putting some comments on the
elinux.org eoma page - discussion - suggesting what that should
entail?

Err. I would be happy too. I'm not sure were to start though. But lets figure that out.
 

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk