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?) a QiMod trademark. However, the bit about being granted a license to make EOMA-compatible products is troubling. It seems counter to the statement on the FAQ:
"The EOMA-68 initiative is an "Open Specification". That means that anyone can create either CPU cards or motherboards that conform to it. Thus, it is possible for anyone to create an "Open Hardware" compliant CPU card or motherboard." (http://rhombus-tech.net/faq/#index12h2)
...which seems to imply that one wouldn't *need* a license to create compatible products. So my question is this: how open is the EOMA specification, really?
Regards, Jon F.
That's a good point, Jonathan.
On 25/05/14 16:49, Jonathan Frederickson wrote:
I can understand being blacklisted as a customer, and removing all mention of EOMA
Actually, I would hope (and believe) that any properly compliant implementation (open drivers!) would be able to use the EOMA name/trademark.
Regarding the rest of the kerfuffle, Aaron's KDE tablet software is very likely to end up on any hardware made as it seems to have quite an advanced touch interface. I also guess he would be happy with that and only tried to get the tablet hardware going because he wants to see his software used (rather than to get rich) and there was nothing suitable available.
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Boris Barbour barbour@biologie.ens.fr wrote:
Actually, I would hope (and believe) that any properly compliant implementation (open drivers!) would be able to use the EOMA name/trademark.
I would hope so as well, but this seems counter to Luke's recent statements.
Regarding the rest of the kerfuffle, Aaron's KDE tablet software is very likely to end up on any hardware made as it seems to have quite an advanced touch interface. I also guess he would be happy with that and only tried to get the tablet hardware going because he wants to see his software used (rather than to get rich) and there was nothing suitable available.
Yes, Plasma Active development is continuing, as far as I can tell. It'll run on lots of things, but (as with many mobile Linux OSes) doesn't currently have hardware sold with it preloaded. (I personally have it running on my Nexus 7.)
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 12:13:54PM -0400, Jonathan Frederickson wrote:
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Boris Barbour barbour@biologie.ens.fr wrote:
Actually, I would hope (and believe) that any properly compliant implementation (open drivers!) would be able to use the EOMA name/trademark.
I would hope so as well, but this seems counter to Luke's recent statements.
Regarding the rest of the kerfuffle, Aaron's KDE tablet software is very likely to end up on any hardware made as it seems to have quite an advanced touch interface. I also guess he would be happy with that and only tried to get the tablet hardware going because he wants to see his software used (rather than to get rich) and there was nothing suitable available.
Yes, Plasma Active development is continuing, as far as I can tell. It'll run on lots of things, but (as with many mobile Linux OSes) doesn't currently have hardware sold with it preloaded. (I personally have it running on my Nexus 7.)
So what do I need to have a truly open platform (AGPLv3 case specification, derived from http://q3u.be/patent/q3ube/ ) run the Plasma Active software?
Can this software be adapted to have a functional interface when using an HDMI tv as the display? Or does it require a touchscreen?
FYI, I have a Schematic in Kicad based on the imx233 currently.
On Sunday, May 25, 2014 13:20:34 Troy Benjegerdes wrote:cation,
derived from http://q3u.be/patent/q3ube/ ) run the Plasma Active software?
Can this software be adapted to have a functional interface when using an HDMI tv as the display?
Yes.
Or does it require a touchscreen?
No.
Plasma Active is currently layered thusly:
* base Linux OS; this can be most anything that meets a fairly small # of requirements; we've focused most recently on MerOS, but have been successful with SUSE, Debian and [K]Ubuntu as well. This part is device generic and one reason we focused on MerOS is that it is very well suited to small hardware. (Jolla uses it in their Sailfish phone ...)
* Plasma framework (which pulls in select parts of KDE libraries and Qt); as with the base OS this is also generic. It provides an application environment, components and means to compose them into full products.
* The device shell: this part is device specific.
In the Plasma 4.x line, each device needs its own shell to be written using the Plasma framework. They tend to be quite similar, however, and are the lesser amount of work by far. It took ~2 weeks to have a phone UI POC, one 6 month dev cycle to have a shipping netbook UI and ~9 months to develop the tablet UI. None of those projects had more than a handful of people on them.
Plasma Desktop is also built on this same infrastructure, though is a bigger project on its own.
In the next version based on Qt 5, the need for a separate shell goes away. The shell has been genericized and merged into the Plasma framework itself. All one provides is a QML package with the device-specific customizations. What's *very* cool is that due to this design improvement, the desktop shell UI can be changed *at runtime*, so plugging a tablet into a TV could have it shift to a media center UI (e.g. http://www.sinny.in/pmc1.3beta) replacing the tablet UI entirely. when uplugged it could revert to tablet. (ditto for any device form factor combinations...) Canonical refers to this as "device convergence" and is something we first showed as a real possibility 4-5 years ago when we shipped the netbook UX alongside the desktop one.
All of this (both 4.x and 5.x) work with keyboard/mouse, touch or a combination of the two.
There is are active mailing lists (plasma-devel@kde.org and active@kde.org) and the #plasma channel on irc.freenode.net if you want to explore these concepts further
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Boris Barbour barbour@biologie.ens.fr wrote:
That's a good point, Jonathan.
On 25/05/14 16:49, Jonathan Frederickson wrote:
I can understand being blacklisted as a customer, and removing all mention of EOMA
Actually, I would hope (and believe) that any properly compliant implementation (open drivers!) would be able to use the EOMA name/trademark.
if they're properly compliant, of course! we do not wish to have the EOMA name brought into disrepute by people getting it wrong (deliberately *or* accidentally).
l.
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.
l.
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 complient 2. Others may get blocked purly on ego
That said. A standard needs to be protected and directed. Otherwise it simply implodes or explodes.
If there is a "guide to EOMA compliancy", nobody should be to worried.
Exerpt: Rule number one: Thay shall not put customers on fire!
l.
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
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
- 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?
so on that basis, what would you rate the chances of quotes high fees quotes being involved?
- 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.
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?
On 2014-05-26 at 14:49:44 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
- 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.
In other messages you mentioned that it wasn't you but your associate who blacklisted Aaron Seigo from using the EOMA name *and* from building an EOMA compatible products, the same associate who seems also to be not really interesting in contributing with the FLOSS community anymore.
If, as it seems from those messages, it is your associate who has control over the EOMA specs, how can we be sure that the openness you want for it will be maintained?
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valhalla@gmail.com wrote:
On 2014-05-26 at 14:49:44 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
- 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.
In other messages you mentioned that it wasn't you but your associate who blacklisted Aaron Seigo from using the EOMA name *and* from building an EOMA compatible products, the same associate who seems also to be not really interesting in contributing with the FLOSS community anymore.
If, as it seems from those messages, it is your associate who has control over the EOMA specs,
no - i do. he doesn't have the technical expertise.
how can we be sure that the openness you want for it will be maintained?
good point. let me think... i know: if he doesn't listen then i will resign. that would terminate the project as he needs my technical expertise.
l.
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
good point. let me think... i know: if he doesn't listen then i will resign. that would terminate the project as he needs my technical expertise
Your associate blacklisted someone because of a single launch product launch gone bad and that blacklisting extends not just to not collaborating with them on a product launch again (which would be perfecting understandable) but to banning them from using EOMA.
By doing so he has sent the message "we will ban people from using EOMA for reasons other than using the EOMA name on a product that doesn't meet the spec". That is a seriously worrying message for anyone considering implementing EOMA based products.
On 27/05/14 00:49, peter green wrote:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
good point. let me think... i know: if he doesn't listen then i will resign. that would terminate the project as he needs my technical expertise
Your associate blacklisted someone because of a single launch product launch gone bad and that blacklisting extends not just to not collaborating with them on a product launch again (which would be perfecting understandable) but to banning them from using EOMA.
By doing so he has sent the message "we will ban people from using EOMA for reasons other than using the EOMA name on a product that doesn't meet the spec". That is a seriously worrying message for anyone considering implementing EOMA based products.
I have to agree that Luke's argument is not great: how much expertise is required to say "no"? And any uncertainty about hardware freedom is a valid concern for potential contributors.
BUT, I think we're getting rather hung up on hypotheticals here. Luke started the whole projet to get mass-produced hardware that runs free software natively, respecting the GPL. He's put a huge amount of effort into that, trying many different avenues to progress. Such hardware would be great, even in the unlikely that the it were restricted in some way. Imagine if Samsung sold a totally unlocked chromebook with proper GPL drivers for everything. We'd all be thrilled.
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Boris Barbour barbour@biologie.ens.fr wrote:
I have to agree that Luke's argument is not great: how much expertise is required to say "no"?
you're asking the wrong question. the question that needs to be asked, every single time, is, "does this get us towards the goal, yes or no". that is the only question that matters.
And any uncertainty about hardware freedom is a valid concern for potential contributors.
nobody has attempted what we are attempting, before.
absolutely nobody.
sure there have been some great little projects out there where people are absolutely ecstatic if they sell 10,000 units over a 2-5 year period.
this project is not one of those projects.
BUT, I think we're getting rather hung up on hypotheticals here. Luke started the whole projet to get mass-produced hardware that runs free software natively, respecting the GPL. He's put a huge amount of effort into that, trying many different avenues to progress. Such hardware would be great, even in the unlikely that the it were restricted in some way.
it would need to be an extreme situation for me to even *remotely* consider adding in restrictions that compromised software freedom. i'm not sure i could even consider it at all.
i actually don't understand why people don't understand that the goal is very very simple. combine. free. software. and. mass-volume. factories.
anything that gets towards that goal is in.
anything that aggravates that goal is out.
Imagine if Samsung sold a totally unlocked chromebook with proper GPL drivers for everything. We'd all be thrilled.
exactly.
the control over the samsung product range for example comes from people who are in bed with those people who peddle DRM. those people who peddle DRM tell samsung (for example) "we will buy your product if and only if you lock it down".
they also are shit-scared about product returns, so they lock it down so that they are in total control of the device from the bootloader onwards. we have a different strategy in place (a very simple one) to deal with product returns: one that DOES NOT use DRM.
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:49 PM, peter green plugwash@p10link.net wrote:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
good point. let me think... i know: if he doesn't listen then i will resign. that would terminate the project as he needs my technical expertise
Your associate blacklisted someone because of a single launch product launch gone bad and that blacklisting extends not just to not collaborating with them on a product launch again (which would be perfecting understandable) but to banning them from using EOMA.
peter. the message to be sent to people is that they cannot fail to keep in contact when dealing with billion dollar factories. it doesn't matter who they are: if you fail to keep us informed in a timely fashion that you are not going to be able to keep to the promise that you made, such that it embarrasses us to our billion-dollar client, people need to learn that it has consequences.
is that clear enough?
all that aaron had to do was tell us, when we asked, a month after the beginning of the campaign, how many orders he had. he failed to do so. it was *three months* by the time he finally told us that he had only 250 orders - a whopping 90% shortfall on the promise that he had made, on the basis of which we made a promise to the factory that there would be an order of 2500 units.
if he had told us within the first month "i'm sorry but this is much lower than i expected" we would have been able to go "ok, we have time, let's see what we can do".
but he kept the discussion going *WITHOUT ANSWERING THE QUESTION HOW MANY ORDERS DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE*.
every time we asked him "how many orders do you have" he answered with an answer that did not answer the question.
he dodged this question time and time again, finally answering when it was far too late.
now, if there are any other people who wish to do the exact same thing then i have absolutely no interest in dealing with them.
can you understand and appreciate that?
does it make sense?
is it absolutely clear now?
this has absolutely nothing to do with EOMA: it is a simple business relationship. we are interested to hear from people who can deliver on their promises, but who, if they cannot deliver, are forthright enough to be able to be honest and up-front about it.
is that not unreasonable, peter?
i would greatly appreciate your answer to these questions. if i have not satisfactorily answered your questions or if anything is unclear please say so immediately.
l.
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
if he had told us within the first month "i'm sorry but this is much lower than i expected" we would have been able to go "ok, we have time, let's see what we can do".
but he kept the discussion going *WITHOUT ANSWERING THE QUESTION HOW MANY ORDERS DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE*.
every time we asked him "how many orders do you have" he answered with an answer that did not answer the question.
he dodged this question time and time again, finally answering when it was far too late.
now, if there are any other people who wish to do the exact same thing then i have absolutely no interest in dealing with them.
can you understand and appreciate that?
Yes I can understand and appreciate why you are so frustrated, a collaborator being evasive screwed you at just the time you thought you might finally get your project off the ground.
this has absolutely nothing to do with EOMA: it is a simple business relationship. we are interested to hear from people who can deliver on their promises, but who, if they cannot deliver, are forthright enough to be able to be honest and up-front about it.
is that not unreasonable, peter?
It is absoloutely reasonable to blacklist a collaborator who has let you down and failed to communicate from future collaborations.
However if something is to be considered an open standard you have to accept and allow people who meet the technical requirements to implement it and sell there own implmentations it *even if* you don't like them and *even if* you have had a past collaboration with them go bad due to miscommunication.
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:50 AM, peter green plugwash@p10link.net wrote:
However if something is to be considered an open standard you have to accept and allow people who meet the technical requirements to implement it and sell there own implmentations it *even if* you don't like them and *even if* you have had a past collaboration with them go bad due to miscommunication.
ok - i see the point you're making. well, i am not disagreeing with you. i will have to think about it. my initial reaction is to go "ambivalent / neutral" as in "not take any action that need not be considered".
guys - can we bring this discussion to a close now? as you know i have been forced to take a contract in a foreign country in order to get some funds in: that means i am incredibly busy and do not really have the time for long discussions.
l.
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 00:19:16 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
all that aaron had to do was tell us, when we asked, a month after
You keep repeating this slanted and untruthful story, Luke. You are lucky I am not a litigious sort of person as this is well within the realm of libel by this point.
apologies to all, i have unsubscribed aaron seigo from this list, as he is not contributing to the completion of the goals of the project. that is all that i am interested in, is seeing this project completed. sorry to be pathological about it. l.
apologies to all, i have unsubscribed aaron seigo from this list, as he is not contributing to the completion of the goals of the project. that is all that i am interested in, is seeing this project completed. sorry to be pathological about it. l.
If this mailing-list is dedicated to EOMA, could you rename it accordingly? The current "arm-netbook" name lead me to think it had much wider scope.
Stefan
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Stefan Monnier monnier@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
If this mailing-list is dedicated to EOMA, could you rename it accordingly? The current "arm-netbook" name lead me to think it had much wider scope.
it does [have wider scope]. also i am busy. judgement call: it'll do.
Stefan
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
If this mailing-list is dedicated to EOMA, could you rename it accordingly? The current "arm-netbook" name lead me to think it had much wider scope.
it does [have wider scope].
Then what did "i have unsubscribed aaron seigo from this list" mean? Did it refer to some other list? If not, then I think there is no justification for you to unsubscribe him from a list that has wider scope than your project.
Stefan
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Stefan Monnier monnier@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
If this mailing-list is dedicated to EOMA, could you rename it accordingly? The current "arm-netbook" name lead me to think it had much wider scope.
it does [have wider scope].
Then what did "i have unsubscribed aaron seigo from this list" mean? Did it refer to some other list? If not, then I think there is no justification for you to unsubscribe him from a list that has wider scope than your project.
as the list administrator and the instigator of the project i can assure you that i most definitely do have the authority to decide what is a contribution to this project and what is an aggravation, and to take action accordingly.
l.
as the list administrator and the instigator of the project i can assure you that i most definitely do have the authority to decide what is a contribution to this project and what is an aggravation, and to take action accordingly.
I find this to be in contradiction with "it does [have wider scope]".
Stefan
+1
On Tuesday 03 June 2014 16:21:37 Stefan Monnier wrote:
If this mailing-list is dedicated to EOMA, could you rename it accordingly? The current "arm-netbook" name lead me to think it had much wider scope.
it does [have wider scope].
Then what did "i have unsubscribed aaron seigo from this list" mean? Did it refer to some other list? If not, then I think there is no justification for you to unsubscribe him from a list that has wider scope than your project.
Stefan
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
On 05/26/2014 05:49 PM, peter green wrote:
Your associate blacklisted someone because of a single launch product launch gone bad and that blacklisting extends not just to not collaborating with them on a product launch again (which would be perfecting understandable) but to banning them from using EOMA.
By doing so he has sent the message "we will ban people from using EOMA for reasons other than using the EOMA name on a product that doesn't meet the spec". That is a seriously worrying message for anyone considering implementing EOMA based products.
If you don't get a straight answer then all you need to do is not reuse the PCMCIA connector and pin out. There's really nothing special about it and the enclosures could do with some improvement. There no spec on the thermal management either.
Post your own spec under an open hardware license that will be difficult to patent and the blacklisting problem is solved.
Making the molds and tooling for a superior high durability connector is cheap and simple in China. If you have the volume there are plenty of connector co's that will tool up for you.
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Bari Ari bari@onelabs.com wrote:
On 05/26/2014 05:49 PM, peter green wrote:
Your associate blacklisted someone because of a single launch product launch gone bad and that blacklisting extends not just to not collaborating with them on a product launch again (which would be perfecting understandable) but to banning them from using EOMA.
By doing so he has sent the message "we will ban people from using EOMA for reasons other than using the EOMA name on a product that doesn't meet the spec". That is a seriously worrying message for anyone considering implementing EOMA based products.
If you don't get a straight answer then all you need to do is not reuse the PCMCIA connector and pin out. There's really nothing special about it and the enclosures could do with some improvement. There no spec on the thermal management either.
Post your own spec under an open hardware license that will be difficult to patent and the blacklisting problem is solved.
the only thing to consider here is to ensure that there is no electronic or electrical incompatibility. the worst possible thing that could happen is short-circuits on the power lines in battery-operated devices that cause the battery to explode and catch fire.
so you say "just reuse PCMCIA" presumably without communicating. it's more complex than that.
anyway: enough, please. i have been forced into a situation where i am now extremely busy.
l.
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Bari Ari bari@onelabs.com wrote:
On 05/26/2014 05:49 PM, peter green wrote:
Your associate blacklisted someone because of a single launch product launch gone bad and that blacklisting extends not just to not collaborating with them on a product launch again (which would be perfecting understandable) but to banning them from using EOMA.
By doing so he has sent the message "we will ban people from using EOMA for reasons other than using the EOMA name on a product that doesn't meet the spec". That is a seriously worrying message for anyone considering implementing EOMA based products.
If you don't get a straight answer then all you need to do is not reuse the PCMCIA connector and pin out. There's really nothing special about it and the enclosures could do with some improvement. There no spec on the thermal management either.
Post your own spec under an open hardware license that will be difficult to patent and the blacklisting problem is solved.
Making the molds and tooling for a superior high durability connector is cheap and simple in China. If you have the volume there are plenty of connector co's that will tool up for you.
btw, bari,
one thing i forgot to say. it's nice to hear from you again: your advice early on was genuinely appreciated: i learned a lot and you helped get the project going in its early stages. your offer to create the first EOMA68 CPU Card PCB was also really appreciated however if you recall when it came push to shove you didn't deliver, i had to ask someone else to do it, and you haven't been heard from... until now...
... and what we hear from you is, instead of being a contribution to the project, it is an aggravation of the project, by explaining to people how to interfere with it, possibly jeapordise it and how to replace it.
i would really appreciate it if you didn't do that again.
if you have something to contribute to the project that helps achieve the project's goals you are more than welcome to remain on this list. can i give you a couple of days to think about that? i will assume that if i do not hear from you that you are no longer interested.
l.
On Monday, May 26, 2014 16:34:16 Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote:
In other messages you mentioned that it wasn't you but your associate who blacklisted Aaron Seigo from using the EOMA name *and* from building an EOMA compatible products, the same associate who seems also to be not really interesting in contributing with the FLOSS community anymore.
Please keep in mind that not only did I never receive notice of such a "blacklisting" (email, phone, postal mail .. anything would have sufficed; the first I heard of it was on this list from Luke), but this followed over a year of QiMOD failing to meet project deadlines they committed to including a tablet case design and a functional PCB that worked with the EOMA68. Even simply getting EOMA68 samples for engineers to work with was a struggle as they sold samples to people rather than get them into the hands of people working on products, something I only found out after the fact by talking with people who had purchased them.
If, as it seems from those messages, it is your associate who has control over the EOMA specs, how can we be sure that the openness you want for it will be maintained?
That is really the key point, imho.
Controlling the EOMA68 trademark makes a lot of sense for the reasons Luke raised: to have a standard mean anything you need product compliance, and the best tool for enforcing that is a program of testing with the reward being access to a controlled bit of intellectual property (e.g. a brand).
However, that trademark needs to go into a properly designed organization with a published and transparent mandate that defines that body's responsibilities and limits. QiMOD knows this, as we talked about this a number of times. It hasn't happened, and I wonder if it ever will.
It could have been worse, though: their original plan, as they shared it with me, was to use *patents* to control the EOMA68 standard via licensing. Personally, I found patenting an open hardware platform a bizarre approach in the context of "open hardware". I tried to talk them out of leveraging patents and recommended using trademark instead, which they appear to have adopted.
To my knowledge, they are making these decisions without what I would consider sufficient legal council (self-filing patents, not having a lawyer specializing in IP on retainer, etc.) That ought to be a warning flag for those wanting to participate with EOMA68.
To my knowledge, they are making these decisions without what I would consider sufficient legal council (self-filing patents, not having a lawyer specializing in IP on retainer, etc.) That ought to be a warning flag for those wanting to participate with EOMA68.
Rest easy. Pressures being what they are from the subversive Bill Goatse's of this world, have to plan. Greased the pole from two directions with fully GPL'd sub projects already! :)
http://www.gplsquared.com/SoM2/SoM2.html alternative in full KiCAD should failure became an option for whatever reason. Anyone can run with alternative should they see fit.
http://www.gplsquared.com/eoma_boot/eoma_boot.html the Linux images are interchangeable with cubieboard2 so developers can continue even if EOMAs are not physically available to hand.
The final jigsaw is a fully GPL'd openscad based case designs for tablet, netbooks, panel computer, and match box sized gadget. Got me four 3D printers to address that soon enough.
(Robust fully GPL'd applications have also been pencilled in though those require a lot more free time to get things going at this moment in time.)
Also forget to mention to this list - worked out a case design to fully 3D stack and network and wire up 1000 EOMAs within about 1 cubic meter. Total power consumption 5kW, 1 Petabyte SSD storage, Cost half million dollars. Somebody like google, facebook, amazon would hardly blink as they salivate to queue up to buy them - one hopes :)
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
- 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?
- 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
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:01 AM, mike.valk@gmail.com mike.valk@gmail.com wrote:
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.
starting referencing some of these discussions from the archives would help. mainly it's a TODO reminder :)
arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
-
Aaron J. Seigo -
Bari Ari -
Boris Barbour -
Elena ``of Valhalla'' -
joem -
Jonathan Frederickson -
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton -
mike.valk＠gmail.com -
peter green -
Randy Kramer -
Stefan Monnier -
Troy Benjegerdes