I haven't seen a thing about GDC internal assets before your answer - but, it doesn't mean that it isn't there. Mr. Joerg have (a little irritating, if you ask me) tendency to edit his posts much after anyone could have any reason to scroll back, so it's possible that you saw something that I didn't, just by reading it a little earlier.

If you want to see and example of this is (just as a live sample of how communication problems arise in this very case) visible even in this very thread. My opening post have direct quote of Joerg's answer, and in his single post here, he quotes *the same* post with a little different content. Namely, the "GDC assets" bit is missing from my quote (because it wasn't there, back when he wrote it), but mysteriously appeared many hours later, in the middle of the night

Generally, it wouldn't be anything to care about, but it adds to the confusion and misshaped communication - in unlikely case that anyone would ask for my suggestion, I think that it simply doesn't help. Also, thats what I wanted to avoid (thus those extensive quotes in first post, religiously documented), learning from past experiences of discussions, where your Project Leader was involved

Waiting eagerly for when we will know for sure. Personally, I think that things like Arduino have quite defined "Open Hardware" in past years, but I understand where you come from with flexibility in naming. Anyway, it's reassuring, that we're for the same goal - "the more open, the better" philosophy.

Which, I guess, answer Joerg's question
"Why one need those schematics, at all".
[moderator edit] another lie of estel, compare to what I really said.[/edit]
Well, if it was discussed 6 or 7 times in GTA times, it speaks itself about people's interest in such files, doesn't it? As for why, answer if painfully simple - for the same very reason we want open sources of software, even if we don't plan to write patches in next year or two. In (unlikely) case that GDC get blown up/disappear/whatever, the same work won't need to be done from scratch.

In the case of someone with appropriate tools and will appearing in few years, even if GDC won't be interested in Neo900 v2, maybe someone else will be. It's easier to base it on something, than on nothing, right? Isn't it one of the reasons, why Neo900 is so heavily based on GTA04?

Generally, the sole question of "why anyone would want to have schematics of 100% open device) seems strange to me. I think it seem strange to anyone understanding FOSS/FOSH world - thus my previous comment about "lack of understanding of Free ideas". It seems to me, that even in Neo900 team, there are people who sympathize with having as much things open as possible (dos1), so I guess that "why you need that feature sources" isn't the only one.

That would be awesome! Holding my thumbs for this most positive variant.

Absolutely agree, but (there always must be some "but" ) I see FSF as Open project, just like FOSS or FOSH. It's made by people, and people a) make mistakes, b) doesn't always make best thing in revision 1, 2, 3 etc. If the Neo900 Team's point would - not as objective, but as "side result" - convince FSF to upgrade their dogma (call it "patched code" ), I think it would benefit us all, just like patches to any_foss software (or even the more important ones, like kernel). Even leaving aside the obvious (and desirable) effect of Neo900 gaining attention from more Privacy/Free interested people, that could never heard about it, a single time.

It's worth to mention, that from my - "consumer" egoistic point of view, the thing about popularizing Neo900 is even more important (more devices sold -> more possible developers -> more momentum for platform -> even more devices sold -> more accessible price of single device -> even more devices sold -> even more "hype" created | and so goes on). Thus, I think that dropping any viable method of making Neo900 more widely recognized isn't helping. At least without trying, esp. if it doesn't cost anything (materially)


I still see some possible tensions - like, even in the Neo900 Team body, there seem to be different view on "if we should even try to release those project files at all, why anyone need them anyway", as opposed to "lets do everything to release as much as we can, and explain why we can't some things". You know, the inversion of roles - for some - like you - it's natural that if you don't release something in Open project, you explain why. For others (Mr. Joerg, as it seems from posts here) it's the other way around - people should explain why they want it and convince the releasing party.

Well, maybe I'm just biased, but the latter reminds me of my time in Council and Nokia's mantra answers to every code opening request:
"Please write what benefits releasing of those sources would bring to platform and Nokia, from business point of view"? I know it's not the same thing, but even a little resemblance makes me shiver. Brrr...

Still, I'm positive (at least, more positive than 24 hours ago) that those tension will get resolved, and the ones between Team and Community stop arising/disappear, too. I, for one, found my way of avoiding miscommunication - it involve stopping treating Project Leader as seriously as before (aka: as grownup one), filtering everything but technical details from said person posts. For everything else, wait for Spokesman announces/answers. Small change, and everything seems less tense, all of sudden
---

Anyway, thanks a lot for positive attitude! As you might have noticed it's quite hard to discuss about those tensions/criticize anything Neo900-related without being called "troll" at least n*infinity times, so every sane and civilized (not to mention friendly) input helps. Quadruple as much, when coming from Team officials.

/Estel