[Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

[Paul Kocialkowski]

Le lundi 15 août 2016 à 20:38 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton a écrit :
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Paul Kocialkowski <contact at paulk.fr> wrote:
> > 
> > Resending with the right address, please don't CC my Replicant address since
> > this is not directly related to Replicant.
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Le lundi 15 août 2016 à 20:15 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton a écrit :
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic <tct at ceata.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 15.08.2016 20:09, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > * "New Libre Hardware Crowdfunding Project"
> > > > > 
> > > > > Saying that the hardware is libre or free is an overstatement.
> > > > [...]
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think the title should be reworked, depending on whether the circuit
> > > > > board design is libre or not.
> > > > 
> > > > I agree. AFAIR the circuit board design is being withheld for now,
> > > 
> > > that's incorrect.. or misleading.  the PCB SCHematic file is available
> > > as a PDF and i have only just, a few hours ago, asked people to aid
> > > and assist in a review.
> > 
> > A pdf schematics is documentation about the hardware, it is not a source
> > format
> > of the circuit board design. It does not make the circuit board free.
> 
>  *sigh*.  there are variants available if you look.  there's even a
> GPL'd KiCAD repository available with an early design.  KiCAD turned
> out to be a waste of time so i was forced to use proprietary software
> as it contains the necessary design rules verification for
> inexperienced PCB design engineers to do a decent job.  the files are
> huge, i can't maintain git revision control on them properly, and i'm
> annoyed about it.

Those details are not very relevant here. The question is whether the source
form of the circuit board as sold are free or not. Based on the elements I grasp
from your answers and what was reported in this thread, the answer is visibly
no.

I don't want to waste your time here, so either I'm wrong and those sources are
free, either I'm not wrong and they're not.

Please make it clear if I'm wrong, otherwise there is no further need to discuss
this matter.

>  apologies paul - i'm tired, i'm massively stretched, i'm reaching a
> threshold on what i can cope with, so i'm winding down answers so i
> can conserve energy to get the hundreds of tasks needed to be
> completed prepared and up and running.

I understand -- what I'm asking calls for a binary yes/no answer here, no need
for any long explanation.

>  if you or anybody else would like to help with that, i am more than
> happy to give them all the access to whatever they want so it can get
> done.

I'm sure what "that" refers to. You said you don't want these sources released
at this point (unless I misunderstood). What is there left for us to do?

-- 
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/attachments/20160815/5c1bbc9e/attachment.sig>