View Single Post
dos1's Avatar
Posts: 257 | Thanked: 2,053 times | Joined on Sep 2010 @ Warsaw, Poland
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
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'?".
Do you have any example from the past where *all you got* was a "stop pestering" response? I don't mean "stop pestering" alone, it happens sometimes, but if I haven't missed anything it was always related to something like "but your questions were already answered".

Originally Posted by Estel View Post
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.
I agree and I do all my best to always provide such explanations - and mostly because I'm also interested in decisions like that and reasoning behind them, I would surely push Joerg and Nikolaus to answer. I would, in case something like that happened - but so far they were the ones always reasoning their stuff properly without me even asking, so I don't have anything to complain about yet

But I'm pretty sure that what I said above (about GDC internal assets) was actually repeated from what I saw earlier stated publicly.

Originally Posted by Estel View Post
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).
There are various definitions of Open Hardware. "100% open" could mean "you can use it without single line of non-open software"; it could mean also "we provide you schematics and datasheets", it could mean also "we provide you complete kit with everything necessary to start production of your own clone".

From my perspective, looks like Neo900 will be somewhere between the last two. The still open question is - where exactly.

Originally Posted by Estel View Post
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).
Our denies were related to the situation where we simply ask preorderers if we can transfer their orders to Neo900 UG. That was not possible, so technically orders had to be cancelled - but now it opens the possibility for direct transfer of the refunds to the UG and it should be easily possible with non-CC orders. We're also pondering about solutions for people who paid with CC.

This is the difference in accounting - "order transfer" vs. "refund". If we're extremely lucky, maybe donors won't be even able to tell the difference from their point of view.

Originally Posted by Estel View Post
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.
It changed recently, so it could be simply out-of-date. But I don't think it could be "few days ago". Or even if it could, the fact is that right now I feel much more confident about everything I say without consultation than, say, month ago (but that doesn't mean that I wasn't confident back then of course )

Originally Posted by Estel View Post
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
Possibly - Joerg is not greatest and best in communication skills, that's for sure - but I think having him active here brings more benefits than drawbacks anyway.

Originally Posted by Estel View Post
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
Well, it's not our objective to convince FSF on anything. They themselves are pretty aware that in case of hardware, the line of what's acceptable for them and what's not in openness is pretty arbitrary. I never seen FSF requiring any "project files" for hardware available to get their blessing; they are mostly interested in software that runs on blessed hardware, and to set a limit on "what's still a software, and what's already a hardware" (which is very tricky to answer properly) they ensure their "non-replacable firmware" rule.

Our objective is to show, that our design does not need to follow that rule in order to respect freedom and privacy of the user.

Originally Posted by Estel View Post
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).

Sure Even if positive attitude seems to be dominating, I can see that there indeed is some kind of tension, or doubt, in the community thanks to - let's say it - our recent f*ck ups, and I perfectly understand that. So I try to make it all clear as much as I can, and to learn something from past mistakes.
Sebastian Krzyszkowiak -
Long term Openmoko supporter. Owner of two Neo Freerunners, a few N900s and some others too.
Future owner of the Neo900

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to dos1 For This Useful Post: