Re: Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

Probably to answer is Neo900 - "100% open" would be possible to find out by answering to this one

Is it fair to call Estel "100% troll" ?


☺

Re: Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

I think it's 79% open.

Re: Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

Do not care about 100% at all, neither hardware nor trolls.

If Neo900 runs Fremantle faster, has more Ram to reduce the need to swap as often and maybe have some additional bits and pieces supported by an up-to-date kernel, i could be a happy bunny!
Though i voted €300 at the time the poll was created, i would try to spent what is needed for such a device!

Re: Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

By opening this thread and supporting it with your post in the Pyra thread, you have turned what was a personal feud with Jörg into a public attack on the Neo900 project.

[EDIT]
The referenced post in the Pyra thread has since been censored by a moderator thus altering the sentiment of my point above!

OT: Do we really need censorship on TMO? I may not agree with what Estel had to say but I will defend his right to say it.
[/EDIT]

Regarding 100% openness, there are various definitions of open. The FSF who you keep referring to, use the word "free" instead of "open" as "open" doesn't necessarily give you freedom. Jörg qualified what he meant by "open" in the same sentence you have referenced, only you appear to have intentionally omitted the critical part of the sentence in your quotation that explains exactly what he meant. Here's the sentence in full:

and here's the starred reference that adds further clarification:

Jörg always has been project leader. The Neo900 project only exists because he envisioned the idea brought together the people to make it possible. AIUI, Nikolaus has always supported this and the only problem is that the the project leader must make the financial relevant decisions which meant that Neo900 UG had to be set up. All parties involved have already apologised for "all this mess". If you can't accept their apologies, no problem, but please refrain from trying to destroy this small community project.

Re: Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

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

Re: Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

I love you all..
but ...do you really need to be so verbose?
F**k!!! Life is so short!

Re: Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

I'm sure it was already mentioned few months ago. And sorry, but while it's true that Joerg edits his posts a lot to add something or make them sound better, this particular example is pretty unconvincing, since aside from added sentence at the end which is not really important in this context, quotes from your and Joerg's posts match word to word. And last edit to that post was made a few minutes after it was initially posted.

Also, the "GDC assets part" you claim was missing (but if you look carefully, you can see strange "Also: And no" in your quote, suggesting that your citation just skipped the nested quote...) was actually simply a quote from earlier post. I understand that lengthy posts in thread with almost 2k of them makes it easy to unintentionally miss some details, but you seem to do everything to find an excuse to not to admit that... :(

s/schematics/project files/

It's not a software where you can download a package, call "make install" and you're done. Usefulness of those files is limited by the fact, that they are pretty much tied to particular production methods, availability of components etc.

Schematics are very important in any open (as in: well documented, unlocked, hackable etc.) device and we will provide them *for sure*. Project files are completely different beast and can be sometimes problematic to release, so it's natural to consider all pros and cons, with "why would anyone need it" being one of them. Going through all the hassle just for the sake of openness, without any pragmatic benefits to anyone, is simply not worth it.

Sure, we're not dropping anything. If only I had unlimited time and energy it would already be done months ago :)

See above.

[edit]
Exactly. Even in our internal communication Nikolaus has stated multiple times that GDC's role as a entrepreneur in this project is not exactly what he envisioned and is not 100% happy with it.

Re: Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

As soon as I know, both joerg_rw and dos1 are more interested in final device than in financial part of the project, and i think they both got access to those files. So in case of something happens to GDC, or some opportunity with different device maker, i think they both will cooperate, even if it's just to make such device for themselves.

Re: Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

Estel at least second time now is pulling exactly that specific stunt of incorrectly accusing me to edit posts _after_ he answered them, again using lies to justify his insults and trolling, to get his way no matter what, and obviously purposely damaging the project by badmouthing me and Nikolaus on our own projects (seems he's not aware that, since Nikolaus also does Pyra development, exactly same situation and considerations re assets in footprints should apply to both projects afaik) . Last time he did this been during a really bad trolling that once more earned him a ban iirc.

Please don't feed the troll.

cheers
jOERG
[edit: intentionally with signature this time]

Re: Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

I have not read this whole thread, and I probably have no informations about what's happening right now.

Just two things:

• "open" and "free", what's the correct definition? Even N900 is amazingly "free" and "open" compared to the NSAndroids. I hope, hell I BELIEVE that GDC and Joerg is (was) trying to do the best for Neo900. (And I know, from time to time, people disagree about what's best.
  Eagle schematics are really important (not only) for me, but even without them, Neo900 would be my only choice.
• Don't let this amazing project collapse just and only because of personal disagreement.

There are guys relying on you.

Thank you.