The argument about GDC assets its, of course, a reasonable one. I don't get why it was so hard to tell it earlier (it isn't critique on your side, you wasn't the one answering me). I just hope that whatever happen about those project files, we will get detailed answer on why this or that decision was made, not something along the line of (in tone of previous Project Leader's answers) "we decided that we want it that way, period, stop pestering, what you don't understand, 'stop' or 'pestering'?".

You know, like "releasing Eagle project files would mean releasing Golden Delicious Computers internal asset about XYZ, which isn't important only for Neo900, and they can't afford to lose having it proprietary". Of course, I understand that such answer can't be given right now.

I think that Community could accept such things, if it would be served detailed and honest (no coating in marketing-like words), just like it did with GSM modem (impossibility to have it running 100% open, due to blocker legal reasons we're all aware of). I think it's part of the "openess in communication" that sulu asked for, in the main thread.

Still, there remains a question if calling it "100% open", instead of "as open as viable from GDC business point of view" is fair, but it's more acceptable, if people carrying about FOSS'ness are treated with respect, by giving civilized and honest answers (again, not point aimed at you, as you may presume).

Roger that - I based "definite tone" on all (up to now) comments from Neo900 team, denying possibility to drop refunds (like impossibility to direct refunds to other entity, or change target of credit card's refunds). If Team Neo900 sees any real opportunity for avoiding/circumventing that refund thing (disastrous, in my opinion), I stand corrected (and happy penguin, too).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that you was referring to "talking with joerg and hearing that..." just few days ago, when the "crisis" begins :P It may be just me being too slow to catch up the buzzling progress (changes), though.

In any matter, my in promptu comment wasn't mean to sneaky stick a needle, in any matter. Honestly, I think that you're doing *AWESOME* job as a spokesman for Neo900 - both early in the project and now (guess who I wanted to forward Polish Radio to, if they would get convinced to cover Neo900 in their short prime-time audition ). If we're on the constructive critique topic, I think that, for "personality reasons", Neo900 would gain much (and save on some communication mishaps), if Joerg would left talking with people to you, altogether :P

Acknowledged and even agreed, to some extent. It was about Project Leader's sum of reactions to Free Software Foundation, Mr. Stallman (with all due respect, I think that Mr. Joerg still have much to achieve in Open World, before even considering speaking about FSF/Stallman in such a "bit off" way, as he did in many occasions...), and overall, the answers to concerns about openness ("pestering", again).

As a way of dully noting, you might have noticed, that I started to standardize calling him as "Project Leader", and from now on, it will be the only way I'm going to do it (apart from nick, or my sentences could get quite repetitive :P).

Glad to hear that you (as in Team Neo900) value it so much. As for questions, well, the one that I had was if - after writing the "modem problem article" - Neo900 is going to start some (preferably, public) professional discussion with FSF about their dogma (for reasons mentioned in my opening post, here).

But, I'm not sure if project files wouldn't be another requirement for FSF blessing (correct me?), so it may be a null point, anyway... OTOH, even without "full blessing", convincing them to change their "modem firmware" dogma would still be something to help Neo900 gaining recognition
---

I really hope that it is the kind of critique that helps to improve project, not hinder it. As you may see, I'm quite enthusiastic about it (even if a little torn-between/discouraged by latest things).

/Estel