On 11/05/2013 03:43 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
there is also the question of read-only eeproms. these exist and may be used for various reasons in both end-user- and engineering-type boards. would having a read-only eeprom make an otherwise engineering board an end-user product?
Yes. It would mean the buyer does not own their device.
IIUC this EEPROM only holds data which the kernel can elect to use, but which it can also just ignore (and use some other data from a µSD card instead). So making it unwritable doesn't mean the owner is screwed.
Stefan
I do not feel it is fair to exclude proprietary vendors from a open standard by insisting their hardware be open. That will cripple adoption in this current OEM climate and severely reduce the chances of making the desired change in the market.
What we can do is encourage participants to be open and endorse products that adopt open hardware philosophies. We need real life examples to compel people to switch. Once the EMOA-68 standard is adopted by both proprietary and open hardware vendors, being fully open and 'respects your freedom' becomes a selling point in an apples to apples comparison. We can not get folks to understand 'not owning your' device until there is such a direct comparison. We need to bring these vendors on to even ground with us.
Options 'C' is the best course forward for a healthy ecosystem with competition. Do not artificially restrict the participants be insisting on a philosophy, that defeats the point of an 'open' standard.