[Dev] [libreplanet-discuss] Misleading information in EOMA68 news
alirazeen at alirazeen.com
Fri Aug 26 16:27:20 GMT 2016
(Removed John Sullivan from the CC list because I’m sure he gets this email via libreplanet-discuss and doesn’t need (want?) me to address him directly :))
I follow your argument but to make sure we’re on the same page, let me try to rephrase it in my own words so that you can agree or disagree. I believe you claim that we cannot say that the EOMA68 is “libre hardware from the beginning” because we have no proof that it has indeed been libre hardware since the very beginning of the EOMA68 project (which would be T1, in your email). Perhaps we can claim that “EOMA68 is libre hardware from the time the hardware is shipped to its backers” when they eventually release their PCB designs, or maybe we can claim “EOMA68 is libre hardware today” (which would be T2) if they released the PCB today. But even if they did release it today, we cannot claim that “EOMA68 is libre hardware from the beginning”.
Have I understood you correctly?
> On Aug 26, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic <tct at ceata.org> wrote:
> Thank you, Ali. I really appreciate you taking the time to answer my
> call and share your opinion on the libreplanet-discuss mailing list.
> On 26.08.2016 16:28, Ali Razeen wrote:
>> If this is true in the libre hardware world,
> I follow your logic, but I'm not sure there is an exact analogy libre
> software <-> libre hardware.
>> then at the moment, EOMA68 is libre hardware right from the beginning.
> I can identify several times used in this sentence and the one below: T1
> is the inception (beginning) of the project. T2 is the present day
> (now). T3 is the earliest shipping time of the hardware to the backers.
> It is my understanding that the sequence is T1 < T2 < T3 and not T2 < T3
> = T1.
>> If they release the hardware to their backers like myself, but do not provide the PCB design sources, *then* we can say they are not libre hardware.
> If at T3 the hardware ships with free PCB design sources, then at T3
> we'll have proof and thus be able to say EOMA68 *is* libre hardware (by
> today's standards = at board level, not necessarily at chip level).
> At T2 based on the proof that the laptop case CAD files have been made
> available under GPLv3+ at some point in the interval [T1, T2) we are
> only able to say EOMA68 has the laptop case as libre hardware, but we
> can't say EOMA68 is libre hardware, because at T2 we don't have proof
> that the EOMA68 computer itself (EOMA68-A20) is libre hardware (at board
> But, if at T2 we have the EOMA68 project's guarantee (I don't think we
> have that guarantee stated, at least not on the campaign's page) that at
> T3 EOMA68 computer will ship to the backers with free PCB design
> sources, then at T2 the *EOMA68 project* can say that at T3 the EOMA68
> will be libre hardware (they have the power to do know that, because
> they have designed the board and it's their decision if and when to
> release the design sources). And at T2 *we* can say (like PaulK said)
> that the EOMA68 "may be" libre hardware in the future or, based on the
> track record of the project leaders with the laptop case CAD files under
> GPLv3+, that it's *probably* going/*likely* to be libre hardware at T3.
> From T1 to T2 and continuing until T3, neither the EOMA68 project can
> say their hardware *is* libre hardware, nor we can say it *is* libre
> hardware. Instead, they can say that only the laptop case *is* libre
> Now, let's assume that the EOMA68 project has a change of heart and
> decides to release the free PCB design sources at least to its
> campaign's backers at T2, and not wait until T3. Then at T2/now we are
> able to say that the EOMA68 hardware *is* libre hardware.
> But I fail to see how sending the free PCB design sources to the backers
> at T2 and not wait until T3 will modify/reflect in the statement quoted
> many times here that "[EOMA68 hardware] is libre hardware right from the
> Also, I don't see any reason why this statement refers to T1, since at
> T2 (and T2 > T1) we don't have any proof that EOMA68 hardware is libre
> hardware. If at T2 not even the backers don't have the free PCB design
> sources, I wouldn't consider true to even state that "[EOMA68 hardware]
> is libre hardware *now*", yet alone essentially stating that "[EOMA68
> hardware] is libre hardware since T1".
> I hope this makes sense for everyone.
More information about the Dev