hi folks,
ok - does anyone know of any companies that sell Libre or FSF-Endorseable hardware? i have thinkpenguin, laclinux, hardware-libre.fr and inatux.com on the list already, i am looking to contact companies that would like to help sponsor these projects, it is very close so i would like to keep going full-time on them now.
also, can i ask people a huge favour: would people be willing to write some testimonials in support of the work that i am doing, so that they can be published on the rhombus-tech.net web site, as that would help enormously.
many many thanks,
l.
ok - does anyone know of any companies that sell Libre or FSF-Endorseable hardware?
Does Gluglug count as a "company"? Everything from https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/respects-your-freedom
Other friendlies include ZaReason and Jolla -- though neither is endorsable.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Stephen Paul Weber singpolyma@singpolyma.net wrote:
i thought about that... answer: maaayybeee.... :) i'll ask around (unless someone knows someone already who's on gluug?)
Everything from https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/respects-your-freedom
got them already :)
Other friendlies include ZaReason and Jolla -- though neither is endorsable.
oo zareason, good find - definitely! they do laptops with trisquel linux.
jolla... not so sure... doesn't look, on the face of it, like they're motivated by FSF-Endorseability, more by "let's make money out of all this software being zero-cost" - unless i am missing something. and they also appear to have just designed their own products, so would be unlikely to be interested in sponsoring someone else's designs.
if i remember correctly i think thinkpenguin where sceptic :(, see the trisquel.info mailing list archive . search for post by chris from on the thinkpenguin domain name i think.
testimonials, theres a idea! :) hmm...
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Alexander Stephen Thomas Ross maillist_arm-netbook@aross.me wrote:
if i remember correctly i think thinkpenguin where sceptic :(,
no, completely the opposite :)
version one:
rhombus-tech are making the future i dream of. one of no bullshit business model, where it's _my_ device not the advertisers, not the googles, not the bad apples, not the microshafts device but _my_ device. where the "i" in "me" is empowered with a device that respects me. where i have my rights of my software freedoms and so the pratic advantages that come with it. like (part of being no bullshit) is decent/proper software support, which means i recive updates for the foreseeable future.
a company that doesn't play games with me, that is't trying to confuse me into buying. who instead of slapping banboo on the outer-side of the laptop case and say woop look eco laptop mwhahahah, they design a shared, public, free(? is that the right word?) standard that is shared between a nearly unlimited rang of devices and things. that brakes the status quo. of junk of the hole device to make it faster buy our new thing suckers attitude of the device,laptop,pc,etc,etc OEM's (replace OEM with more familiar word?)
I see a happier future, thanks to rhombus-tech.
hmm, quite long and goes into explain the biz... i'll draft another one :)
On Tuesday 17. March 2015 22.14.19 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
A while ago someone started a list of vendors of systems that promote/support Free Software on the FSFE Fellowship Wiki, and it has since grown considerably, although some entries probably need updating or removing:
https://wiki.fsfe.org/Hardware_Vendors
It might be worth a look. FSF-endorseable status is not mentioned, but that has mostly been a rarity until now, anyway, especially in the PC part of the market. Generally, a lot of these lists on the Web are out-of-date or feature all sorts of products that you might not care about, but the aim is to keep this one useful.
Paul
P.S. You'll also see that Rhombus Tech is mentioned in the Single Board Computers section of that page. When this was updated some time back, the situation as far as I understood it was that the EOMA-68 initiative might assert patents against people making "unauthorised" products based on the published standard, and so a warning note was added. Since then, I think your policies (and associates) have changed and that you're aiming to go down the trademark-plus-certification route to avoid unsafe clones bringing the initiative into disrepute (which I also imagine is a lot more viable a strategy, anyway). I'll gladly update the above page to clarify the situation if this is indeed the case. :-)
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
well, i believed that patents would do the job exactly as actually turns out that Certification Marks (the twin brother of Trade Marks) actually does.
so what i intend to do hasn't changed, but people's *understanding* has changed.
Since then, I think your policies (and associates)
my *former* associates turned out be a a bunch of short-sighted financially-motivated individuals who would do whatever it takes to make profits first, disregarding all and any principles and goals required in order to achieve those profits.
*my* policies, principles and goals haven't changed: they're just now better understood.
... and to protect people from being injured or killed by unsafe clones: yes absolutely. that has always always been the goal, even when i believed that patents would be the means by which that could be achieved: turns out that it's Registered Certification Marks that are the better vehicle.
(which I also imagine is a lot more viable a strategy, anyway).
it's always been the strategy, paul.
I'll gladly update the above page to clarify the situation if this is indeed the case. :-)
yes please, i didn't realise that there was a page which mis-advised people based on a misunderstanding of what i said. i believe i can say that safely (without offense paul!) because (a) you find the certification marks explanation acceptable but the patents one not and (b) i do recall endeavouring to make it clear, but really: there's *really* nothing new or different between what i said four years ago and six months ago [apart from the tool four years ago was patents, and the tool six months ago was certification marks]. *really*. so, from (a) and (b), we can logically and rationally deduce that there must have been a complete misunderstanding.
what i do remember though about the conversation four years ago was that there were a lot of people really "not getting it". also, i am keenly aware that there is a huge aversion to patents in the software libre community, as they tend to be severely abused, lending an aura of "total automatic distrust" of the inventors. as a result of that abuse we know that there are now several linux patent groups formed: i recall that it was almost *demanded* of me to transfer full responsibility and control of the patents to those groups! groups who have *no way* to fully grok the scope of this project.
since then, if you recall, when i entrusted responsibility for getting the MEB crowdfunded to a third party with good software libre credentials, i had to fight to keep it on track, even to the extent of posting very embarrassing public corrections on their forums due to them making unauthorised committments about changes and additions to the standard that, if implemented, would throw the *entire* standard into disrepute.
so with that as just one example that i - all of us - learned from, i think you can see why it is not safe to entrust anything like patents or trademarks to any other third party... yet. *once this is all established* and running safely, then yes i will set up a foundation, with strict rules, find some appropriate directors, and leave it in their hands. but that will be several years yet.
l.
On Thursday 19. March 2015 22.42.32 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
Well, the means of doing things may also have changed, too. ;-)
Sorry, I meant to indicate that they were your associates at the time, not your current associates.
Sure, I believe this. I was just puzzled about anyone using patents to achieve this goal, though, because patents seem to cost real money to keep up (at least according to people I know who in their work have filed them, only to give up on renewing them because of the financial burden, subject to my partial recollection of various conversations). That may be true of things like trademarks (and other marks), too, but when people apply for those, it's quite clear what they have in mind, and I presume that they are also more effective when any kind of infringement occurs.
OK. I'll update the page and clarify the situation. In fact, given the level of interest in this initiative, I think it's probably a good idea to have a separate page about such topics, anyway, and that might allow for a longer explanation about what you had in mind.
Well, patents are effectively monopolies, but unlike things like copyrights and trademarks they violate various principles that people regard as being central to notions of justice and fairness. For example, you can unknowingly infringe some patent and be held responsible whereas such things are pretty much impossible with copyrights (your code, independently developed, ends up being the same as an existing work) or trademarks (your product's logo happens to look almost exactly like the logo of some other product or initiative in the same commercial field).
So, any fear of patents is particularly valid and understandable, I feel, and it's why various open hardware groups have tried to regulate patents in a way similar to that done by copyleft licensing. Meanwhile, the various patent- sharing groups, although having something of a protective effect, don't really attempt to address the underlying problem, partly because various member organisations of these groups happen to like what patents have to offer their businesses.
Your perspective on patents is probably different from mine, and I'm not going to try and convince you to change your perspective, however. But for those of us who cannot just regard patents as tools, it is very positive that you're choosing different tools (that also happen to be more widely understood and accepted for the purpose in question) to achieve your objectives.
I have to admit that I didn't follow the forums in question (which I guess were something to do with Improv).
Fair enough.
Paul
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
:)
nono, understood.
Sure, I believe this. I was just puzzled about anyone using patents to achieve this goal, though,
yehh, we learn. random drunken walk, bouncing off the fence a la brownian motion. the trick is to open the gate at juuust the right time, and even a drunkard can achieve great things :)
appreciated. it's pretty unique. it's even different from the arduino situation (which i understand isn't going so well - the contract manufacturer is attempting to claim "arduino" as theirs.... whoops...)
no, i get all that now.
Your perspective on patents is probably different from mine,
you might be surprised :) i don't like them either: and i am *really* not a fan of software patents. i just couldn't think of any other tool to use to protect people from harm.... and then someone said "well you should use trademarks for that" and i went, "ohhhh...." :)
I have to admit that I didn't follow the forums in question
i thought it was a good idea... so did they.... misunderstandings all round.... it wasn't fun. you didn't miss anything, other than it taught me the lesson to remain 100% in control of the technical details and implementations until it reaches critical mass. after that's achieved i really do have to move on to the next project [60% efficient combustion engines, Hybrid E.V.s and alternative power sources]. but... first things first.
l.
2015-03-17 21:14 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
Perhaps this is not exactly what you are looking for... but what about Olimex, the people behind oLinuXino, based in Europe (Bulgaria I think)?
They seem quite Free Software-friendly, providing some designs under "Open Source Hardware" licenses, and they have lots experience with some of the chips that EOMA68 has used and will use (e.g. A10 and A20).
After serious consideration for a while I didn't buy anything from them, though... but only because I am waiting for the EOMA68 products :-P ;-)
Hope that helps. -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo manuel.montezelo@gmail.com
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo manuel.montezelo@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps this is not exactly what you are looking for... but what about Olimex,
no. tsvetan joined this list a few years ago as a way to obtain information rather than to contribute to it. he then belittled the project publicly on a prominent mailing list with tens of thousands of people on it. plus he is in the business of making money out of software libre people rather than respecting software freedom (he sells GPL violating products).
so... no, absolutely not.
thanks for mentioning them, though. please do keep looking, there may be more that have been missed.
l.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo manuel.montezelo@gmail.com wrote:
After serious consideration for a while I didn't buy anything from them, though... but only because I am waiting for the EOMA68 products :-P ;-)
:)
well shouldn't be long now. chris from http://macrofab.net is doing a great job. he's aiming to have some quotes by next wednesday, there are only a few parts left (the major ICs) that need pricing up.
l.
arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
-
Alexander Stephen Thomas Ross -
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton -
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo -
Paul Boddie -
Stephen Paul Weber