On 1/1/20, David Niklas doark@mail.com wrote:
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 23:02:51 +0000 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
On 12/31/19, David Niklas doark@mail.com wrote:
Maybe I have not been clear, how does signing an agreement or joining UC "vet" people? I always thought that my code/schematics vetted me as a fool or a wise man.
it's not that simple when it comes to collaboration where it really matters if incompatibilty is hosed.
<snip>
That's a really interesting reply. Do you mean that there is no way to pretest changes, say with an FPGA and only Silicon will prove the design? Or is there no ongoing testing? Or what?
no, it's that if the Trademark Holder refuses to respect Trademark Law, failing repeatedly to respond to reasonable and in-good-faith requests to have taken into consideration the unique Libre-transparent *business* circumstances that were never, in any way shape or form envisaged by the Founders at the time of the creation of the Membership Agreement - the one that every other *business* is perfectly happy to sign because no other business that signed the Agreement gives a flying fuck about transparency and trust for the benefit *of end-users* (not shareholders) - then the *technical* aspects you describe - testing, pretesting, silicon, FPAGs - all that is absolutely and utterly irrelevant.
the collaboration that is in place, and which is otherwise successfully taking place, is taking place behind *closed doors*, where we, as Libre Businesses, are told, basically, "sign this agreement which entirely compromises your business model, or go fuck yourself".
by complete contrast...
the OpenPower Foundation's Director, Hugh Blemings, is someone who has worked with Libre Developers (he himself is one) for over two, nearly three decades.
*he* was the one that told *me* that the OpenPower Foundation Members have created a Membership Agreement that is specifically designed to allow Libre Businesses to be "happy" with its terms and conditions.
l.