Discussion:
[Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-08-15 17:09:39 UTC
Permalink
Hi, it appears that there is some misleading information in the EOMA68 news:

* "New Libre Hardware Crowdfunding Project"

Saying that the hardware is libre or free is an overstatement. The integrated
circuits are not libre, so the whole hardware (which covers both integrated
circuits and circuit boards) is not. The circuit board may be libre, but I
couldn't find the circuit board layout description files. Note that schematics
don't make the circuit board libre, but only documented.

I think the title should be reworked, depending on whether the circuit board
design is libre or not.

* "Respects your freedom"

It is an overstatement to say that the computer can respect freedom. The
computer is composed of both hardware and software aspects. Hardware does not
respect its users freedom (see above). In addition, the hardware has at least
one major feature that cannot work with free software: its GPU. Thus, we can't
say that its software aspects respects freedom (despite being a candidate to
receive the FSF's RYF certification).

Thus, it would be more accurate to say that the device is free-software-
friendly, which is vague enough to not be contradictory with the facts.

Of course, this situation is much better than many other computers out there,
that can't even startup without proprietary software.

What do you think about making those changes?

Sidenote: I am very happy to see projects such as the EOMA68 come to life, as
they are really moving things forward. However, I also care very much about
providing accurate information, especially after what happened with Purism.

Cheers,
--
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Josh Branning
2016-08-15 17:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
* "New Libre Hardware Crowdfunding Project"
Saying that the hardware is libre or free is an overstatement. The integrated
circuits are not libre, so the whole hardware (which covers both integrated
circuits and circuit boards) is not.
Not 100%. Though at the moment, it is very difficult to get 100% libre
hardware, if you are including things such as reproducible HDLs for CPUs.

It is only fairly recently that people are able to run 100% free
software, and that didn't go from 0 to 100% free within the space of a
few years, it took much chiselling away, removing and replacing the bits
that were proprietary, piece by piece.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
The circuit board may be libre, but I
couldn't find the circuit board layout description files. Note that schematics
don't make the circuit board libre, but only documented.
Neither could I find these things.

http://rhombus-tech.net/faq/#index14h2
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
I think the title should be reworked, depending on whether the circuit board
design is libre or not.
* "Respects your freedom"
It is an overstatement to say that the computer can respect freedom. The
computer is composed of both hardware and software aspects. Hardware does not
respect its users freedom (see above). In addition, the hardware has at least
one major feature that cannot work with free software: its GPU. Thus, we can't
say that its software aspects respects freedom (despite being a candidate to
receive the FSF's RYF certification).
I agree.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Thus, it would be more accurate to say that the device is free-software-
friendly, which is vague enough to not be contradictory with the facts.
Of course, this situation is much better than many other computers out there,
that can't even startup without proprietary software.
I agree.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
What do you think about making those changes?
Sidenote: I am very happy to see projects such as the EOMA68 come to life, as
they are really moving things forward. However, I also care very much about
providing accurate information, especially after what happened with Purism.
Cheers,
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-08-15 17:55:35 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
* "New Libre Hardware Crowdfunding Project"
Saying that the hardware is libre or free is an overstatement. The integrated
circuits are not libre, so the whole hardware (which covers both integrated
circuits and circuit boards) is not.
Not 100%. Though at the moment, it is very difficult to get 100% libre 
hardware, if you are including things such as reproducible HDLs for CPUs.
Indeed, I don't know of a single device that has free hardware currently.
However, this is no excuse to pretend it's the case!
It is only fairly recently that people are able to run 100% free 
software, and that didn't go from 0 to 100% free within the space of a 
few years, it took much chiselling away, removing and replacing the bits 
that were proprietary, piece by piece.
Definitely, I also believe this is the way to go: liberating software one step
at a time!
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
The circuit board may be libre, but I
couldn't find the circuit board layout description files. Note that schematics
don't make the circuit board libre, but only documented.
Neither could I find these things.
http://rhombus-tech.net/faq/#index14h2
So I guess this means it's not going to be a free circuit board. Too bad.
The article should definitely be updated to reflect that, then.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
I think the title should be reworked, depending on whether the circuit board
design is libre or not.
* "Respects your freedom"
It is an overstatement to say that the computer can respect freedom. The
computer is composed of both hardware and software aspects. Hardware does not
respect its users freedom (see above). In addition, the hardware has at least
one major feature that cannot work with free software: its GPU. Thus, we can't
say that its software aspects respects freedom (despite being a candidate to
receive the FSF's RYF certification).
I agree.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Thus, it would be more accurate to say that the device is free-software-
friendly, which is vague enough to not be contradictory with the facts.
Of course, this situation is much better than many other computers out there,
that can't even startup without proprietary software.
I agree.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
What do you think about making those changes?
Someone who can modify the article should speak up when a consensus was reached
here. In the meantime, I'm around for discussing this!

Cheers,
--
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-15 18:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

I'm not a Parabola hacker and I only speak for myself. I believe Paul
refers to this news entry at parabola.nu:

https://www.parabola.nu/news/new-libre-hardware-crowdfunding-project-with-parabola-pre-installed/
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
* "New Libre Hardware Crowdfunding Project"
Saying that the hardware is libre or free is an overstatement.
[...]
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
I think the title should be reworked, depending on whether the circuit board
design is libre or not.
I agree. AFAIR the circuit board design is being withheld for now, and
the designer has promised to release it at a later date (presumably
under a libre license).

Quoting from the campaign page:

"The only exception to this rule to release everything in advance is the
PCB CAD files for the Computer Card. We’re planning to release the PCB
CAD files for the Computer card once sufficient units are hit that
ensures any third party manufacturing runs will not undermine the
project’s development or stability."
- https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
It is an overstatement to say that the computer can respect freedom.
[...]
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
the hardware has at least
one major feature that cannot work with free software: its GPU. Thus, we can't
say that its software aspects respects freedom (despite being a candidate to
receive the FSF's RYF certification).
I agree with this too.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Thus, it would be more accurate to say that the device is free-software-
friendly, which is vague enough to not be contradictory with the facts.
I'm not really a big fan of the "free-software-friendly" term, exactly
because it's vague (laking a definition/criteria) and it doesn't really
tell users much regarding how respecting of software freedom that piece
of hardware is. That's why a wide range of hardware projects feel at
liberty to promote themselves as "free-software-friendly".
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Of course, this situation is much better than many other computers out there,
that can't even startup without proprietary software.
I agree. Instead of using the term "software-freedom-respecting" or
saying it "respects your freedom" or that it "respects your software
freedom", probably a better choice of words and accurate presentation is
that this hardware is RYF-certifiable by FSF or that it has been allowed
by FSF the provisional use of the RYF certification mark, to quote Joshua:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2016-06/msg00213.html
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Sidenote: I am very happy to see projects such as the EOMA68 come to life, as
they are really moving things forward. However, I also care very much about
providing accurate information, especially after what happened with Purism.
I agree and I am happy too to see such an important project implemented!

Thanks,
Tiberiu

--
https://ceata.org
https://tehnoetic.com
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-15 18:45:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Thus, it would be more accurate to say that the device is free-software-
friendly, which is vague enough to not be contradictory with the facts.
I'm not really a big fan of the "free-software-friendly" term, exactly
because it's vague (laking a definition/criteria) and it doesn't really
tell users much regarding how respecting of software freedom that piece
of hardware is. That's why a wide range of hardware projects feel at
liberty to promote themselves as "free-software-friendly".
Indeed, it's not very precise, but I don't think that's the goal here. I think
vague statements are fine as long as they are clearly recognized as such.
It depends on the targeted audience. If that is the general public, I'm
sure that the average user doesn't clearly recognize this term as vague.

I believe the targeted audience of the Parabola blog is not only
educated users/free software activists/developers, but the general
public/average computer user.

I can draw a parallel between "free-software-friendly" hardware and
Android as "open-source" system. Although "open-source" has a
definition, it's a long definition of 10 points and OSI intentionally is
lax with the use of this term, to offer companies an alternative to the
strict free software term defined and protected by FSF, to avoid the
misleading of users.

Thanks,
Tiberiu

--
https://ceata.org
https://tehnoetic.com
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-08-15 19:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Resending with the right address, please don't CC my Replicant address since
this is not directly related to Replicant.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Thus, it would be more accurate to say that the device is free-software-
friendly, which is vague enough to not be contradictory with the facts.
I'm not really a big fan of the "free-software-friendly" term, exactly
because it's vague (laking a definition/criteria) and it doesn't really
tell users much regarding how respecting of software freedom that piece
of hardware is. That's why a wide range of hardware projects feel at
liberty to promote themselves as "free-software-friendly".
Indeed, it's not very precise, but I don't think that's the goal here. I think
vague statements are fine as long as they are clearly recognized as such.
It depends on the targeted audience. If that is the general public, I'm
sure that the average user doesn't clearly recognize this term as vague.
I believe the targeted audience of the Parabola blog is not only
educated users/free software activists/developers, but the general
public/average computer user.
I mean that the precise wording "free-software-friendly" is intrinsically vague,
so I doubt that anyone will understand it as an equivalent of "fully free
software" or "freedom-respecting".

So the question is whether it's good to use vague wording. I think that e.g. for
the news title, it would be fine. Of course, a link to RYF and the single-board-
computers page could shed some more lights for anyone interested.
--
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-16 07:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Thus, it would be more accurate to say that the device is free-software-
friendly, which is vague enough to not be contradictory with the facts.
I'm not really a big fan of the "free-software-friendly" term, exactly
because it's vague (laking a definition/criteria) and it doesn't really
tell users much regarding how respecting of software freedom that piece
of hardware is. That's why a wide range of hardware projects feel at
liberty to promote themselves as "free-software-friendly".
Indeed, it's not very precise, but I don't think that's the goal here. I think
vague statements are fine as long as they are clearly recognized as such.
It depends on the targeted audience. If that is the general public, I'm
sure that the average user doesn't clearly recognize this term as vague.
I believe the targeted audience of the Parabola blog is not only
educated users/free software activists/developers, but the general
public/average computer user.
I mean that the precise wording "free-software-friendly" is intrinsically vague,
so I doubt that anyone will understand it as an equivalent of "fully free
software" or "freedom-respecting".
However, both average users and high-profile organizations in the free
software world are using "free software friendly" to also mean "fully
free software" or "freedom-respecting".

Few examples:

User #1:

Free software friendly GPS? [...] that even RMS would approve of?
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/free-software-friendly-gps

User #2:

Free software friendly (Wireless) Gamepads [...] should work on a Linux
kernel without blobs (eg: Linux-libre, Debian GNU/Linux kernel, etc
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/free-software-friendly-wireless-gamepads

User #3:

Is Arduino Free software friendly? Re: The Arduino software is free software
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/arduino-free-software-friendly

Company #1:

Freedom Included - free software friendly hardware [...] Lemote Yeeloong
[...] the only laptop in the world that completely respects free
software - for example, it has modifiable copyleft boot firmware (bios),
and wifi that does not require binary blobs to work. It is the laptop
used by the founder of the GNU project and Free Software.
http://www.freedomincluded.com/

Company #2:

ThinkPenguin, Inc. is currently the only company with a significant
catalog selling free software friendly hardware. From wifi adapters and
printers to desktops and laptops. For more information on free software
friendly hardware check out the Free Software Foundation's Respect Your
Freedom web site at: fsf.org/ryf.
https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/short-interview-christopher-waid-about-thinkpenguin-linux-action-show

Note: most if not all of their wifi adapters are freedom-respecting
(with or without RYF certification) but their laptops and desktops are
certainly not freedom-respecting since those use proprietary BIOS. To
them, all are "free software friendly" and, free software friendly =
FSF's RYF...

Company #3:

Talos is the world's first ATX-compatible, workstation-class mainboard
for the new, free-software friendly IBM POWER8 processor and architecture.
https://www.raptorengineering.com/TALOS/prerelease.php

Note: however, if the board is produced and sold, is guaranteed to
receive the FSF's RYF certification. Rean on.

Nonprofit #1:

Interested in a powerful, free software friendly workstation? - Let
Raptor Engineering know that you would be interested in purchasing a
Talos Secure Workstation mainboard that runs only 100% free firmware and
software. [...] Raptor Engineering, is gauging public interest in a new
high-end workstation designed to run only free software.
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/interested-in-a-powerful-free-software-friendly-workstation

Nonprofit #2:

Linux: Free Software Friendly Graphics Card [...] completely open video
card [...] graphics card specifically for open source systems [...] so
that no one has to deal with anything closed source (BIOS included). The
goal here is to produce a graphics card which is a Free Software geek's
dream in terms of openness.
https://www.linux.com/news/linux-free-software-friendly-graphics-card

Nonprofit #3:

FSF certifies ThinkPenguin USB Wifi adapter with Atheros chip to be free
software friendly [...] The Free Software Foundation (FSF) today awarded
Respects Your Freedom (RYF) certification to the TPE-N150USB Wireless N
USB Adapter, sold by ThinkPenguin.
http://www.fsdaily.com/Community/FSF_certifies_ThinkPenguin_USB_Wifi_adapter_with_Atheros_chip_to_be_free_software_friendly
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
So the question is whether it's good to use vague wording. I think that e.g. for
the news title, it would be fine. Of course, a link to RYF and the single-board-
computers page could shed some more lights for anyone interested.
Given the examples above where "free software friendly" is used by a
wide range of users, companies and nonprofits for both hardware fully
compatible with free software and hardware not fully compatible with
free software, I hope we can reach the same conclusion that we have to
avoid this ambiguous term which spreads confusion among what is and what
is not software freedom respecting, thus working against our efforts to
educate users as part of the free software movement.

To draw a parallel between "free software friendly" and "eco-friendly",
yes, I believe Purism has pioneered the practice of "software freedom
washing", similar to greenwashing :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing

Thanks,
Tiberiu

--
https://ceata.org
https://tehnoetic.com
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-08-16 08:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Thus, it would be more accurate to say that the device is free-
software-
friendly, which is vague enough to not be contradictory with the facts.
I'm not really a big fan of the "free-software-friendly" term, exactly
because it's vague (laking a definition/criteria) and it doesn't really
tell users much regarding how respecting of software freedom that piece
of hardware is. That's why a wide range of hardware projects feel at
liberty to promote themselves as "free-software-friendly".
Indeed, it's not very precise, but I don't think that's the goal here. I think
vague statements are fine as long as they are clearly recognized as such.
It depends on the targeted audience. If that is the general public, I'm
sure that the average user doesn't clearly recognize this term as vague.
I believe the targeted audience of the Parabola blog is not only
educated users/free software activists/developers, but the general
public/average computer user.
I mean that the precise wording "free-software-friendly" is intrinsically vague,
so I doubt that anyone will understand it as an equivalent of "fully free
software" or "freedom-respecting".
However, both average users and high-profile organizations in the free
software world are using "free software friendly" to also mean "fully
free software" or "freedom-respecting".
I don't see the problem or contradiction here. It is vague so it can rightfully
cover both terms. The point is that it is not intrinsically equivalent to one of
those.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
So the question is whether it's good to use vague wording. I think that e.g. for
the news title, it would be fine. Of course, a link to RYF and the single-
board-
computers page could shed some more lights for anyone interested.
Given the examples above where "free software friendly" is used by a
wide range of users, companies and nonprofits for both hardware fully
compatible with free software and hardware not fully compatible with
free software, I hope we can reach the same conclusion that we have to
avoid this ambiguous term which spreads confusion among what is and what
is not software freedom respecting, thus working against our efforts to
educate users as part of the free software movement.
I disagree with that conclusion. Using a vague word implies that it doesn't
refer to something more precise -- but it can cover such terms. I don't think
that using a vague/broad expression, that lacks details, is confusing and
misleading. It's just imprecise, which is different.

People who'll understand free software-friendly as fully free are jumping to
conclusion without any basis. The words don't hold that meaning, they are adding
more sense to it than what the words hold.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
To draw a parallel between "free software friendly" and "eco-friendly",
yes, I believe Purism has pioneered the practice of "software freedom
washing", similar to greenwashing :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing
I agree with this but again, don't see a problem. If Purism had said "free
software friendly" all along, it would have been fine IMO. Sadly, they did much,
much than claiming that.
--
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-16 14:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Thus, it would be more accurate to say that the device is free-
software-
friendly, which is vague enough to not be contradictory with the facts.
I'm not really a big fan of the "free-software-friendly" term, exactly
because it's vague (laking a definition/criteria) and it doesn't really
tell users much regarding how respecting of software freedom that piece
of hardware is. That's why a wide range of hardware projects feel at
liberty to promote themselves as "free-software-friendly".
Indeed, it's not very precise, but I don't think that's the goal here. I think
vague statements are fine as long as they are clearly recognized as such.
It depends on the targeted audience. If that is the general public, I'm
sure that the average user doesn't clearly recognize this term as vague.
I believe the targeted audience of the Parabola blog is not only
educated users/free software activists/developers, but the general
public/average computer user.
I mean that the precise wording "free-software-friendly" is intrinsically vague,
so I doubt that anyone will understand it as an equivalent of "fully free
software" or "freedom-respecting".
However, both average users and high-profile organizations in the free
software world are using "free software friendly" to also mean "fully
free software" or "freedom-respecting".
I don't see the problem or contradiction here. It is vague so it can rightfully
cover both terms. The point is that it is not intrinsically equivalent to one of
those.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
So the question is whether it's good to use vague wording. I think that e.g. for
the news title, it would be fine. Of course, a link to RYF and the single-
board-
computers page could shed some more lights for anyone interested.
Given the examples above where "free software friendly" is used by a
wide range of users, companies and nonprofits for both hardware fully
compatible with free software and hardware not fully compatible with
free software, I hope we can reach the same conclusion that we have to
avoid this ambiguous term which spreads confusion among what is and what
is not software freedom respecting, thus working against our efforts to
educate users as part of the free software movement.
I disagree with that conclusion. Using a vague word implies that it doesn't
refer to something more precise -- but it can cover such terms. I don't think
that using a vague/broad expression, that lacks details, is confusing and
misleading. It's just imprecise, which is different.
People who'll understand free software-friendly as fully free are jumping to
conclusion without any basis. The words don't hold that meaning, they are adding
more sense to it than what the words hold.
Well, based on my experience, the masses do understand free software
friendly as fully compatible with free software. Especially since a
company with FSF-endorsed hardware states:

"For more information on free software friendly hardware check out the
Free Software Foundation's Respect Your Freedom web site at: fsf.org/ryf."
https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/short-interview-christopher-waid-about-thinkpenguin-linux-action-show

Which IMO sends the message "free software friendly" is equivalent to
"respects your freedom".

So this user understandably recommends other users:

"ThinkPenguin.com has some great free software-friendly computers (FSF
endorses ThinkPenguin, anyway) and can come installed with Trisquel, so
next time you get a PC, make it a penguin and escape proprietary software."
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/what-trisquel-without-libreboot#comment-56529

For him, "free software friendly" means "no proprietary software" =
"fully free software compatible". And he teaches other users that.

Another example:

"My freedom is ready" -
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/new-thinkpenguin-laptop

What do other people on this list think? Should we avoid using the term
"free software friendly" or there is no reason not to use it?

Thanks,
Tiberiu

--
https://ceata.org
https://tehnoetic.com
Josh Branning
2016-08-16 14:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
What do other people on this list think? Should we avoid using the term
"free software friendly" or there is no reason not to use it?
I think the article is misleading as it's written at the moment, (by
stating it's "libre hardware" rather than "with an open specification").

In regards to free software friendly, it isn't 100%; totally, as there
is no way to run the GPU using free software. And the same problem
exists if one were to claim it 100% "respects your freedom", so I can't
see how saying something is "free software friendly" is much better, as
the same problem(s) exist(s) in both wordings.

Perhaps focusing on the positive features, like stating that it can boot
up using only free software, is pre-installed with parabola, etc. whilst
perhaps also admitting it's apparent flaws (like the lack of libre GPU
drivers), would be the most accurate, honest, and least deceptive way to
describe EOMA68 when writing an article on the subject. That and the
"libre hardware" --> "open specification" correction.


Josh
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-16 15:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Branning
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
What do other people on this list think? Should we avoid using the term
"free software friendly" or there is no reason not to use it?
I think the article is misleading as it's written at the moment, (by
stating it's "libre hardware" rather than "with an open specification").
RMS recommends we avoid using "open" for anything related to computers,
in order to not seem we endorse the "open source" term and confuse users
regarding where we in the free software community stand in this
fundamental matter. This includes avoiding the term "open standards".
Instead, we should use "free standards" if the standard is published as
documentation under a free license.

Maybe a better wording than "with an open specification" would be "with
publicly available schematics" (or "specification").

Quoting the designer, "Full schematics [are] available."
https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop

Please note that in the campaign's text he doesn't specify if the
schematics are available under a free license nor he links to the
schematics (but he specifies that for the "3D-printed casework design
files"; he says that those [are] available under GPLv3 license").
However, if this is the specification:

http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA-68

then I gather that it's under CC BY-SA 3.0. I couldn't find the
schematics PDF Luke was telling us about. Probably he will publish it
after his volunteers review it? I don't know.
Post by Josh Branning
In regards to free software friendly, it isn't 100%; totally, as there
is no way to run the GPU using free software. And the same problem
exists if one were to claim it 100% "respects your freedom", so I can't
see how saying something is "free software friendly" is much better, as
the same problem(s) exist(s) in both wordings.
I see your point. But I was asking more, if it makes sense to add "free
software friendly" to the list of words to avoid:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html
Post by Josh Branning
Perhaps focusing on the positive features, like stating that it can boot
up using only free software, is pre-installed with parabola, etc.
I would also add here that the Embedded Controller is free software.
Post by Josh Branning
whilst
perhaps also admitting it's apparent flaws (like the lack of libre GPU
drivers), would be the most accurate, honest, and least deceptive way to
describe EOMA68 when writing an article on the subject.
I agree.

My question still stands, do someone share my opinion that "free
software friendly" should be avoided and added to the list of infamous
words to avoid? https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html

Thanks,
Tiberiu

--
https://ceata.org
https://tehnoetic.com
Josh Branning
2016-08-16 15:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Josh Branning
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
What do other people on this list think? Should we avoid using the term
"free software friendly" or there is no reason not to use it?
I think the article is misleading as it's written at the moment, (by
stating it's "libre hardware" rather than "with an open specification").
RMS recommends we avoid using "open" for anything related to computers,
in order to not seem we endorse the "open source" term and confuse users
regarding where we in the free software community stand in this
fundamental matter. This includes avoiding the term "open standards".
Instead, we should use "free standards" if the standard is published as
documentation under a free license.
Fair enough.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Maybe a better wording than "with an open specification" would be "with
publicly available schematics" (or "specification").
Or free schematics/specification.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Quoting the designer, "Full schematics [are] available."
https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop
Please note that in the campaign's text he doesn't specify if the
schematics are available under a free license nor he links to the
schematics (but he specifies that for the "3D-printed casework design
files"; he says that those [are] available under GPLv3 license").
http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA-68
then I gather that it's under CC BY-SA 3.0. I couldn't find the
schematics PDF Luke was telling us about. Probably he will publish it
after his volunteers review it? I don't know.
I couldn't find them either. If they're CC BY-SA then I guess they are
free, and not just open or proprietary. But it's difficult to tell or
make any valid assumption without seeing them.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Josh Branning
In regards to free software friendly, it isn't 100%; totally, as there
is no way to run the GPU using free software. And the same problem
exists if one were to claim it 100% "respects your freedom", so I can't
see how saying something is "free software friendly" is much better, as
the same problem(s) exist(s) in both wordings.
I see your point. But I was asking more, if it makes sense to add "free
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html
I think "free software friendly" is fairly synonymous with "respecting
freedom". Of course, the FSF has made their certification program for
specific devices for the latter.

In the event that someone were to create a 100% "free software friendly"
device that for whatever reason didn't get through the FSF's
certification process (they probably do exist), I would like to still be
able to use the term "free software friendly" to describe the device.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Josh Branning
Perhaps focusing on the positive features, like stating that it can boot
up using only free software, is pre-installed with parabola, etc.
I would also add here that the Embedded Controller is free software.
Post by Josh Branning
whilst
perhaps also admitting it's apparent flaws (like the lack of libre GPU
drivers), would be the most accurate, honest, and least deceptive way to
describe EOMA68 when writing an article on the subject.
I agree.
My question still stands, do someone share my opinion that "free
software friendly" should be avoided and added to the list of infamous
words to avoid? https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html
I don't necessarily share that opinion.

But I feel the article on parabola news should be updated if and when a
consensus is reached.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Thanks,
Tiberiu
--
https://ceata.org
https://tehnoetic.com
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-08-16 16:22:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Quoting the designer, "Full schematics [are] available."
https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop
Please note that in the campaign's text he doesn't specify if the
schematics are available under a free license nor he links to the
schematics (but he specifies that for the "3D-printed casework design
files"; he says that those [are] available under GPLv3 license").
http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA-68
then I gather that it's under CC BY-SA 3.0. I couldn't find the
schematics PDF Luke was telling us about. Probably he will publish it
after his volunteers review it? I don't know.
I couldn't find them either. If they're CC BY-SA then I guess they are 
free, and not just open or proprietary. But it's difficult to tell or 
make any valid assumption without seeing them.
I think it's safe to assume "proprietary unless proven otherwise", since this
is, after all, how copyright works.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Josh Branning
In regards to free software friendly, it isn't 100%; totally, as there
is no way to run the GPU using free software. And the same problem
exists if one were to claim it 100% "respects your freedom", so I can't
see how saying something is "free software friendly" is much better, as
the same problem(s) exist(s) in both wordings.
I see your point. But I was asking more, if it makes sense to add "free
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html
I think "free software friendly" is fairly synonymous with "respecting 
freedom".
I really don't think this is a subjective matter: words have a given meaning,
which can be vague or precise, but is well defined. Acting on how people
perceive wording by adding a layer of personal understanding makes it impossible
to draw a line.
In the event that someone were to create a 100% "free software friendly" 
I don't think "100% free software friendly" makes any sense, because "friendly"
doesn't carry a precise enough meaning here. 

It's like saying that something is "100% easy to achieve": "easy" isn't precise
enough. On the other hand, "100% achievable with a single screwdriver" is.
--
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-16 16:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Josh Branning
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Quoting the designer, "Full schematics [are] available."
https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop
Please note that in the campaign's text he doesn't specify if the
schematics are available under a free license nor he links to the
schematics (but he specifies that for the "3D-printed casework design
files"; he says that those [are] available under GPLv3 license").
http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA-68
then I gather that it's under CC BY-SA 3.0. I couldn't find the
schematics PDF Luke was telling us about. Probably he will publish it
after his volunteers review it? I don't know.
I couldn't find them either. If they're CC BY-SA then I guess they are
free, and not just open or proprietary. But it's difficult to tell or
make any valid assumption without seeing them.
I think it's safe to assume "proprietary unless proven otherwise", since this
is, after all, how copyright works.
So I guess both design source files and schematics are nonfree for the
time being.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Josh Branning
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Josh Branning
In regards to free software friendly, it isn't 100%; totally, as there
is no way to run the GPU using free software. And the same problem
exists if one were to claim it 100% "respects your freedom", so I can't
see how saying something is "free software friendly" is much better, as
the same problem(s) exist(s) in both wordings.
I see your point. But I was asking more, if it makes sense to add "free
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html
I think "free software friendly" is fairly synonymous with "respecting
freedom".
I really don't think this is a subjective matter: words have a given meaning,
which can be vague or precise, but is well defined. Acting on how people
perceive wording by adding a layer of personal understanding makes it impossible
to draw a line.
"Friendly" might have a definition:
* (in compounds) Not damaging to, or compatible with (the compounded
noun) E.g. bike-friendly, soil-friendly, dolphin-friendly
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/friendly#English

IMO, this definition points to _compatibility_ for technology (bike is
technology, software is technology). So according to that definition, I
conclude that "free software friendly" would mean "compatible with free
software".

Now let's see where we draw the line. Is the RaspberryPi free software
friendly, in other words compatible with free software?

There is no definition for "free software friendly". And people
understandably (looking or not at the definition of "friendly") tend to
consider it synonymous to "software freedom-respecting", and JoshB
confirmed the rule.

What other people think?

Thanks,
Tiberiu

--
https://ceata.org
https://tehnoetic.com
pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
2016-08-16 18:34:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
* (in compounds) Not damaging to, or compatible with (the compounded
noun) E.g. bike-friendly, soil-friendly, dolphin-friendly
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/friendly#English
IMO, this definition points to _compatibility_ for technology (bike is
technology, software is technology). So according to that definition, I
conclude that "free software friendly" would mean "compatible with free
software".
Now let's see where we draw the line. Is the RaspberryPi free software
friendly, in other words compatible with free software?
There is no definition for "free software friendly". And people
understandably (looking or not at the definition of "friendly") tend to
consider it synonymous to "software freedom-respecting", and JoshB
confirmed the rule.
What other people think?
There are people (such as you) who consider it possible for “free
software friendly” to be applied to the Raspberry Pi. The term is
imprecise. The “line” between friendly and not friendly is fuzzy.
Readers do not know what the author means. Using the term does not go
against the free software principles IMHO like many of the “words to
avoid” do. Clear wording just seems more appropriate. (“Respects your
freedom” would be equally fuzzy if it were not certified according to
clear criteria.)

On another note, if there is a promise to make the PCB free in the
future, maybe it is best to mention this once confirmed.
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-16 19:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
* (in compounds) Not damaging to, or compatible with (the compounded
noun) E.g. bike-friendly, soil-friendly, dolphin-friendly
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/friendly#English
IMO, this definition points to _compatibility_ for technology (bike is
technology, software is technology). So according to that definition, I
conclude that "free software friendly" would mean "compatible with free
software".
Now let's see where we draw the line. Is the RaspberryPi free software
friendly, in other words compatible with free software?
There is no definition for "free software friendly". And people
understandably (looking or not at the definition of "friendly") tend to
consider it synonymous to "software freedom-respecting", and JoshB
confirmed the rule.
What other people think?
There are people (such as you) who consider it possible for “free
software friendly” to be applied to the Raspberry Pi. The term is
imprecise. The “line” between friendly and not friendly is fuzzy.
Readers do not know what the author means.
I agree.
Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
Clear wording just seems more appropriate. (“Respects your
freedom” would be equally fuzzy if it were not certified according to
clear criteria.)
I agree.
Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
Using the term does not go
against the free software principles IMHO like many of the “words to
avoid” do.
Thank you for your opinion. Still, don't you think that if people
consider to be OK the hardware labeled as "free software friendly", then
this undermines the importance of high priority projects such as
Libreboot (free BIOS) and Lima/Tamil (free GPU drivers)?
Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
On another note, if there is a promise to make the PCB free in the
future, maybe it is best to mention this once confirmed.
I agree.

Thanks,
Tiberiu

PS As previously stated, I'm not a Parabola hacker and I only speak for
myself. My opinion shouldn't count for the consensus.

--
https://ceata.org
https://tehnoetic.com
pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
2016-08-16 21:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
Using the term does not go
against the free software principles IMHO like many of the “words to
avoid” do.
Thank you for your opinion. Still, don't you think that if people
consider to be OK the hardware labeled as "free software friendly", then
this undermines the importance of high priority projects such as
Libreboot (free BIOS) and Lima/Tamil (free GPU drivers)?
We could probably list better words for each use case of “free software
friendly”: “Hardware that is compatible with free software”, “free
hardware”, etc. My concern however is that with this precedent, every
fuzzy word would need to be added to the list of “words to avoid”.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
PS As previously stated, I'm not a Parabola hacker and I only speak for
myself. My opinion shouldn't count for the consensus.
Me neither.
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-08-16 19:14:24 UTC
Permalink
(“Respects your freedom” would be equally fuzzy if it were not certified
according to clear criteria.)
On that, I disagree. Freedom in technology has a very precise definition, and
respecting that definition is very binary and straightforward. I don't see
what's fuzzy about it.

The FSF's RYF certification is instead adding layers of compromises (and also
mixing a bunch of other aspects in the bag). So I certainly wouldn't mix
"respects your freedom" and "the FSF's respect your freedom certification".
--
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Josh Branning
2016-08-16 19:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
I certainly wouldn't mix
"respects your freedom" and "the FSF's respect your freedom certification".
So what would you say instead; that is, for a device that is completely
free in software terms, but hasn't been through the FSF's certification
process?

___________________________________________________________________

... Either way, I think the conversation is diverging a bit from your
(IMO) completely valid and excellent point that the parabola news
article is somewhat misleading, and should really be corrected
(especially now that we've realised that we can't even find the pdf of
schematics for the EOMA68 when "libre hardware" is mentioned).
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-08-17 18:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
I certainly wouldn't mix
"respects your freedom" and "the FSF's respect your freedom certification".
So what would you say instead; that is, for a device that is completely 
free in software terms, but hasn't been through the FSF's certification 
process?
"runs with fully free software" means something precise, I don't see any problem
with it. But of course, it doesn't apply here.
___________________________________________________________________
... Either way, I think the conversation is diverging a bit from your 
(IMO) completely valid and excellent point that the parabola news 
article is somewhat misleading, and should really be corrected 
(especially now that we've realised that we can't even find the pdf of 
schematics for the EOMA68 when "libre hardware" is mentioned).
Okay so we should try to come up with suggestions for each sentence that I
quoted in the first email, that don't use "freedom-friendly" since the consensus
is to avoid that term.

Any propositions?
--
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Isaac David
2016-08-17 19:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Okay so we should try to come up with suggestions for each sentence that I
quoted in the first email, that don't use "freedom-friendly" since the consensus
is to avoid that term.
Any propositions?
I have copied the full Markdown text to a collaborative pad:

https://pad.partidopirata.com.ar/p/parabola-eoma

LibreJS users will notice some scripts are blocked, but it is OK to
accept them, they are free like the rest of Etherpad.

Everyone can join and help revise it there, or bring it to this thread
plus your changes and comments.

--
isacdaavid
Isaac David
2016-08-23 04:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Le mer. 17 août 2016 à 14:16, Isaac David
Post by Isaac David
https://pad.partidopirata.com.ar/p/parabola-eoma
Everyone can join and help revise it there, or bring it to this thread
plus your changes and comments.
either not too many people showed up or it didn't take too
many changes to get the wording right.

the campaign is almost over but i think this is still worth
tightening up, even if just for posterity.

if nobody objects to, over the next couple days i'm going to
add what is currently on the pad. i'm cc'ing koz, emulatorman
and adfeno because they were involved in the drafting of the
original news item, if memory serves me right.

--
isacdaavid
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-16 20:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
(“Respects your freedom” would be equally fuzzy if it were not certified
according to clear criteria.)
On that, I disagree. Freedom in technology has a very precise definition, and
respecting that definition is very binary and straightforward. I don't see
what's fuzzy about it.
At least freedom in software has a very precise definition. I'm not
aware of a hardware freedom definition. But by extension, considering
that hardware is designed and manufactured using a hardware description
language, one can define freedom in hardware as freedom of the hardware
description software. I believe this is the point made in this
relatively recent essay of RMS:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html

It seems freedomdefined.org which hosts the most known and accepted
definition for freedom in culture also hosts a definition for "open
source hardware":

http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW

It's also linked from Open Design Definition at OKFN:

http://design.okfn.org/designdefinition/

I couldn't find a definition for hardware freedom at Hardware Freedom
Day: http://www.hfday.org/
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
The FSF's RYF certification is instead adding layers of compromises (and also
mixing a bunch of other aspects in the bag). So I certainly wouldn't mix
"respects your freedom" and "the FSF's respect your freedom certification".
Yes, you're right.

I have just received the answer from RMS regarding the use of "free
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
IMO, we should teach users to avoid this ambiguous term. Instead of
"free software friendly", they should use the term "compatible with
fully free operating systems" if the hardware is compatible with free
distros endorsed by FSF.
I agree. The FSF could post something about this. I will suggest it
to the campaigns people.
In the long term, I hope that our endorsement, RYF, will set a
standard and that people will come to see other terms, without clear
and strict definitions as inadequate.
Thanks,
Tiberiu

--
https://ceata.org
https://tehnoetic.com
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-08-16 16:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Le lundi 15 août 2016 à 21:04 +0300, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic a écrit
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Thus, it would be more accurate to say that the device is free-
software-
friendly, which is vague enough to not be contradictory with the
facts.
I'm not really a big fan of the "free-software-friendly" term,
exactly
because it's vague (laking a definition/criteria) and it doesn't
really
tell users much regarding how respecting of software freedom that
piece
of hardware is. That's why a wide range of hardware projects feel
at
liberty to promote themselves as "free-software-friendly".
Indeed, it's not very precise, but I don't think that's the goal
here. I
think
vague statements are fine as long as they are clearly recognized as
such.
It depends on the targeted audience. If that is the general public, I'm
sure that the average user doesn't clearly recognize this term as vague.
I believe the targeted audience of the Parabola blog is not only
educated users/free software activists/developers, but the general
public/average computer user.
I mean that the precise wording "free-software-friendly" is
intrinsically
vague,
so I doubt that anyone will understand it as an equivalent of "fully free
software" or "freedom-respecting".
However, both average users and high-profile organizations in the free
software world are using "free software friendly" to also mean "fully
free software" or "freedom-respecting".
I don't see the problem or contradiction here. It is vague so it can rightfully
cover both terms. The point is that it is not intrinsically equivalent to one of
those.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
So the question is whether it's good to use vague wording. I think that
e.g.
for
the news title, it would be fine. Of course, a link to RYF and the single-
board-
computers page could shed some more lights for anyone interested.
Given the examples above where "free software friendly" is used by a
wide range of users, companies and nonprofits for both hardware fully
compatible with free software and hardware not fully compatible with
free software, I hope we can reach the same conclusion that we have to
avoid this ambiguous term which spreads confusion among what is and what
is not software freedom respecting, thus working against our efforts to
educate users as part of the free software movement.
I disagree with that conclusion. Using a vague word implies that it doesn't
refer to something more precise -- but it can cover such terms. I don't think
that using a vague/broad expression, that lacks details, is confusing and
misleading. It's just imprecise, which is different.
People who'll understand free software-friendly as fully free are jumping to
conclusion without any basis. The words don't hold that meaning, they are adding
more sense to it than what the words hold.
Well, based on my experience, the masses do understand free software
friendly as fully compatible with free software. Especially since a
But this is not what "friendly" means! "friendly" is inherently vague. It's not
reasonable to act on what some people might add to that meaning: it becomes
impossible to draw a line then.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
"For more information on free software friendly hardware check out the
Free Software Foundation's Respect Your Freedom web site at: fsf.org/ryf."
https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/short-interview-christopher-waid-about-
thinkpenguin-linux-action-show
Which IMO sends the message "free software friendly" is equivalent to
"respects your freedom".
This is an interpretation, too. It is true that "free software friendly" covers
RYF. Also, RYF is not equivalent to "respects freedom".

Either way, I don't see the point of showing examples of people using "free
software friendly" in different ways. The words have a precise meaning, that's
all. How it's generally used and the context association feels irrelevant to me.
--
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli
2016-08-19 01:09:03 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 10:31:50 +0300
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
To draw a parallel between "free software friendly" and
"eco-friendly", yes, I believe Purism has pioneered the practice of
"software freedom washing", similar to greenwashing :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing
Indeed, "free software friendly" is way too vague.
It could be applied to almost any hardware (or software) that can run
some free software somehow.
Any hardware or software which permits or promotes the use of free
software on or with it could be called "free software friendly".

We could instead use some other terms such as:
1) Fully compatible with free software: It fits well RYF hardware.
2) Can run fully free software: It fits more the EOMA68.

However we should make it clear enough for people not to make confusion
between (1) and (2).

Denis.
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-19 14:14:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli
Indeed, "free software friendly" is way too vague.
It could be applied to almost any hardware (or software) that can run
some free software somehow.
Indeed.
Post by Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli
Any hardware or software which permits or promotes the use of free
software on or with it could be called "free software friendly".
Yes, I'm afraid so. Essentially, according to the definition, "free
software friendly" means "free software compatible" but that's also too
vague (in what way compatible, how much compatible etc).
Post by Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli
1) Fully compatible with free software: It fits well RYF hardware.
As Paul has pointed out, RYF-certified hardware is not necessarily fully
compatible with free software. But at least there is a list of criteria
to judge if a piece of hardware is RYF-certifiable and ultimately it's
FSF's decision if they offer the certification for that hardware, and
then you can call that hardware RYF-certified.

There are some compromises to software freedom in FSF's criteria.
Non-upgradeable/non-replaceable firmware being seen as hardware, for
instance. The reasoning is based on the practical consequences and not
the implementation (as hardware or as non-upgradeable/non-replaceable
firmware).

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html#boundary

For the EOMA68 there is probably going to be made the compromise it has
been announced, this time in a form of an exception to the FSF's RYF
certification criteria (so they won't modify the list of criteria).

I'm taking of course about the graphics. Is it "free software
compatible"? Not fully. For office work, the EOMA68 is probably free
software compatible, but it's definitely not for entertainment which
involves 3D acceleration.
Post by Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli
2) Can run fully free software: It fits more the EOMA68.
I don't think this is a well-defined criteria to judge hardware. We
always have to think what hardware features will be missing when using
fully distros and especially when running fully free software.

Just because it boots and you can do some work with the computer (but
not 3D acceleration, or for other hardware, not be able to connect to
WiFi, or Bluetooth) it doesn't mean it can run fully free software.

IMO, EOMA68 should be presented as RYF-certifiable by FSF and then go
into details of what works with free software and the one thing that
doesn't.

Tiberiu

--
https://ceata.org
https://tehnoetic.com
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2016-08-15 19:15:00 UTC
Permalink
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Hi,
I'm not a Parabola hacker and I only speak for myself. I believe Paul
https://www.parabola.nu/news/new-libre-hardware-crowdfunding-project-with-parabola-pre-installed/
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
* "New Libre Hardware Crowdfunding Project"
Saying that the hardware is libre or free is an overstatement.
[...]
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
I think the title should be reworked, depending on whether the circuit board
design is libre or not.
I agree. AFAIR the circuit board design is being withheld for now,
that's incorrect.. or misleading. the PCB SCHematic file is available
as a PDF and i have only just, a few hours ago, asked people to aid
and assist in a review.

the PCB layout file - the complex part that, if somebody were to use
it to **RIGHT NOW** place an order for 500 PCBs thus throwing this
entire campaign into jeapoardy.... yes.

l.
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-08-15 19:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Resending with the right address, please don't CC my Replicant address since
this is not directly related to Replicant.

Hi,
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
* "New Libre Hardware Crowdfunding Project"
Saying that the hardware is libre or free is an overstatement.
[...]
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
I think the title should be reworked, depending on whether the circuit
board design is libre or not.
I agree. AFAIR the circuit board design is being withheld for now,
that's incorrect.. or misleading.  the PCB SCHematic file is available
as a PDF and i have only just, a few hours ago, asked people to aid
and assist in a review.
A pdf schematics is documentation about the hardware, it is not a source format
of the circuit board design. It does not make the circuit board free.
the PCB layout file - the complex part that, if somebody were to use
it to **RIGHT NOW** place an order for 500 PCBs thus throwing this
entire campaign into jeapoardy.... yes.
Then it is fair to say that the circuit board design is not free at this point
but may be freed later.
--
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2016-08-15 19:38:43 UTC
Permalink
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Resending with the right address, please don't CC my Replicant address since
this is not directly related to Replicant.
Hi,
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
* "New Libre Hardware Crowdfunding Project"
Saying that the hardware is libre or free is an overstatement.
[...]
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
I think the title should be reworked, depending on whether the circuit
board design is libre or not.
I agree. AFAIR the circuit board design is being withheld for now,
that's incorrect.. or misleading. the PCB SCHematic file is available
as a PDF and i have only just, a few hours ago, asked people to aid
and assist in a review.
A pdf schematics is documentation about the hardware, it is not a source format
of the circuit board design. It does not make the circuit board free.
*sigh*. there are variants available if you look. there's even a
GPL'd KiCAD repository available with an early design. KiCAD turned
out to be a waste of time so i was forced to use proprietary software
as it contains the necessary design rules verification for
inexperienced PCB design engineers to do a decent job. the files are
huge, i can't maintain git revision control on them properly, and i'm
annoyed about it.

apologies paul - i'm tired, i'm massively stretched, i'm reaching a
threshold on what i can cope with, so i'm winding down answers so i
can conserve energy to get the hundreds of tasks needed to be
completed prepared and up and running.

if you or anybody else would like to help with that, i am more than
happy to give them all the access to whatever they want so it can get
done.

l.
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-08-15 20:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Resending with the right address, please don't CC my Replicant address since
this is not directly related to Replicant.
Hi,
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
* "New Libre Hardware Crowdfunding Project"
Saying that the hardware is libre or free is an overstatement.
[...]
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
I think the title should be reworked, depending on whether the circuit
board design is libre or not.
I agree. AFAIR the circuit board design is being withheld for now,
that's incorrect.. or misleading.  the PCB SCHematic file is available
as a PDF and i have only just, a few hours ago, asked people to aid
and assist in a review.
A pdf schematics is documentation about the hardware, it is not a source format
of the circuit board design. It does not make the circuit board free.
 *sigh*.  there are variants available if you look.  there's even a
GPL'd KiCAD repository available with an early design.  KiCAD turned
out to be a waste of time so i was forced to use proprietary software
as it contains the necessary design rules verification for
inexperienced PCB design engineers to do a decent job.  the files are
huge, i can't maintain git revision control on them properly, and i'm
annoyed about it.
Those details are not very relevant here. The question is whether the source
form of the circuit board as sold are free or not. Based on the elements I grasp
from your answers and what was reported in this thread, the answer is visibly
no.

I don't want to waste your time here, so either I'm wrong and those sources are
free, either I'm not wrong and they're not.

Please make it clear if I'm wrong, otherwise there is no further need to discuss
this matter.
 apologies paul - i'm tired, i'm massively stretched, i'm reaching a
threshold on what i can cope with, so i'm winding down answers so i
can conserve energy to get the hundreds of tasks needed to be
completed prepared and up and running.
I understand -- what I'm asking calls for a binary yes/no answer here, no need
for any long explanation.
 if you or anybody else would like to help with that, i am more than
happy to give them all the access to whatever they want so it can get
done.
I'm sure what "that" refers to. You said you don't want these sources released
at this point (unless I misunderstood). What is there left for us to do?
--
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-15 19:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Hi,
I'm not a Parabola hacker and I only speak for myself. I believe Paul
https://www.parabola.nu/news/new-libre-hardware-crowdfunding-project-with-parabola-pre-installed/
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
* "New Libre Hardware Crowdfunding Project"
Saying that the hardware is libre or free is an overstatement.
[...]
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
I think the title should be reworked, depending on whether the circuit board
design is libre or not.
I agree. AFAIR the circuit board design is being withheld for now,
that's incorrect.. or misleading. the PCB SCHematic file is available
as a PDF and i have only just, a few hours ago, asked people to aid
and assist in a review.
the PCB layout file - the complex part that, if somebody were to use
it to **RIGHT NOW** place an order for 500 PCBs thus throwing this
entire campaign into jeapoardy.... yes.
Thank you for the response, Luke. Please note that in his original
message on this thread, Paul specifically asked about the design source
files and not the schematics.
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
The circuit board may be libre, but I couldn't find the circuit board
layout description files. Note that schematics don't make the circuit
board libre, but only documented.
That is why I believe my statement you quoted above is correct and not
misleading (especially in the context of Paul's question).

Thanks,
Tiberiu

--
https://ceata.org
https://tehnoetic.com
Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli
2016-08-19 13:55:48 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 20:15:00 +0100
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
the PCB layout file - the complex part that, if somebody were to use
it to **RIGHT NOW** place an order for 500 PCBs thus throwing this
entire campaign into jeapoardy.... yes.
I never designed a PCB, so I've no idea if the "PCB layout file" is
enough to fab a board, or if you also need to adjust/tune the tools at
the factory somehow before making a big run.

However I don't see why some competitor would bother producing boards
right now.

See "Developing an Open Source Laptop" at 18 min 55s for a real world
example.

References:
-----------
[1]

The video can be downloaded with youtube-dl.

Denis.
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-08-15 19:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Resending with the right address, please don't CC my Replicant address since
this is not directly related to Replicant.

Hi,
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Hi,
I'm not a Parabola hacker and I only speak for myself. I believe Paul
https://www.parabola.nu/news/new-libre-hardware-crowdfunding-project-with-para
bola-pre-installed/
That is correct, thanks for pointing it out, I forgot to mention it.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
* "New Libre Hardware Crowdfunding Project"
Saying that the hardware is libre or free is an overstatement.
[...]
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
I think the title should be reworked, depending on whether the circuit board
design is libre or not.
I agree. AFAIR the circuit board design is being withheld for now, and
the designer has promised to release it at a later date (presumably
under a libre license).
"The only exception to this rule to release everything in advance is the
PCB CAD files for the Computer Card. We’re planning to release the PCB
CAD files for the Computer card once sufficient units are hit that
ensures any third party manufacturing runs will not undermine the
project’s development or stability."
- https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop
Good to know! Then I feel that the blog post should either state that or not
comment on the hardware aspects.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Thus, it would be more accurate to say that the device is free-software-
friendly, which is vague enough to not be contradictory with the facts.
I'm not really a big fan of the "free-software-friendly" term, exactly
because it's vague (laking a definition/criteria) and it doesn't really
tell users much regarding how respecting of software freedom that piece
of hardware is. That's why a wide range of hardware projects feel at
liberty to promote themselves as "free-software-friendly".
Indeed, it's not very precise, but I don't think that's the goal here. I think
vague statements are fine as long as they are clearly recognized as such.

Specific points about the A20 platform can be dug out from:
http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/single-board-computers
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Of course, this situation is much better than many other computers out there,
that can't even startup without proprietary software.
I agree. Instead of using the term "software-freedom-respecting" or
saying it "respects your freedom" or that it "respects your software
freedom", probably a better choice of words and accurate presentation is
that this hardware is RYF-certifiable by FSF or that it has been allowed
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2016-06/msg00213.html
Yes, that is fine too IMO.
Adonay Felipe Nogueira
2016-08-23 14:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Just now, I **have** subscribed to Parabola's dev mailing list. So I'll
try to catch-up with this topic. :)

I'm inserting libreplanet-discuss and trisquel-users mailing lists as
recipients of this email because of my opinion on Tiberiu-Cezar
Tehnoetic's message
(<https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004353.html>).

I'm also inserting a member of ThinkPenguin as recipient so as to let
him know the issue found by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic, which is discussed
furthermore in this email.

I agree with Paul Kocialkowski's original message
(<https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004341.html>).
Furthermore, my **last** edit in the original pad
(<https://pad.riseup.net/p/parabola-news-libre-tea-computer>) is perhaps
the most correct one (if the timeslider references don't change over
time, it should be
<https://pad.riseup.net/p/parabola-news-libre-tea-computer/timeslider#2238>,
saved July 24th, 2016. After this version, the misleading text gets
added).

About Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic's message
(<https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004353.html>):
Indeed, the use of "free software friendly" to also mean "fully free
software" or "freedom-respecting" is a communication noise (article on
Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_noise>).
Basically, in context of marketing (not sales), a communication noise
happens when **either** the senders or receivers of a message
distort-or-misunderstand the message.

Besides, I'm inserting a member of ThinkPenguin as recipient of this
email so as to let him know the issue that Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic found
in ThinkPenguin's website content. This was done so as to make it easier
for ThinkPenguin to see the issue. This **is not** meant to be taken
offensively.

Regarding the difference between FSF's RYF-certification and "true"
"respects your freedom" (as pointed out by Paul Kocialkowski on
<https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004365.html>): I
don't work for the FSF, and I don't speak for them, but I've been
studying the purpose of RYF for some time, and so far I noticed that RYF
certification is meant to say the following message to society: this
products are certified because, by default, they come with **maximum**
free/libre software that our movement recognizes as free/libre, **up to
where free/libre software is known to exist for**, or up to where
there's no technological limitations as to how to interact with such
software (this **differs** from "digital handcuffs).

Rephrasing the previous paragraph: According to what I have researched
so far, the idea of RYF certification **is-not** to say that these
products are "freedom respecting" in a binary (0 or 1; true or false)
scale, but in a gradual scale (which assumes that, once a new free/libre
software is known to work inside secondary embedded processors (e.g.:
some storage devices, some keyboards, some mouses), then the
already-certified products will be given a time limit to provide an
improved version that uses/provides the newly found free/libre
software).

On the ambiguity of "free software
friendly"
(<https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004367.html>): I
agree that "compatible with fully free operating systems" should be used
instead. Personally, I have caught **myself** using "free software
friendly" sometimes, although I use the other one in most cases.
Besides, using the same reference: I think that the text on GNU.org
about free/libre hardware designs serves as definitive definition to the
hardware scenario. However, as noted on the articles there, it's not
something easy to deny usage of hardware with non-free designs since
there's no know hardware with free/libre design for use that enables
society to do their computing in freedom.

And "RYF certified" can be included inside "free software friendly"
although care must be taken so as not to make the public think that they
are the same, just as it happens in the case of "open source software"
vs. "free/libre software".
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-08-24 10:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adonay Felipe Nogueira
Just now, I **have** subscribed to Parabola's dev mailing list. So I'll
try to catch-up with this topic. :)
I'm inserting libreplanet-discuss and trisquel-users mailing lists as
recipients of this email because of my opinion on Tiberiu-Cezar
Tehnoetic's message
(<https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004353.html>).
I'm also inserting a member of ThinkPenguin as recipient so as to let
him know the issue found by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic, which is discussed
furthermore in this email.
I agree with Paul Kocialkowski's original message
(<https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004341.html>).
Furthermore, my **last** edit in the original pad
(<https://pad.riseup.net/p/parabola-news-libre-tea-computer>) is perhaps
the most correct one (if the timeslider references don't change over
time, it should be
<https://pad.riseup.net/p/parabola-news-libre-tea-computer/timeslider#2238>, 
saved July 24th, 2016. After this version, the misleading text gets 
added).
Feel free to contribute to the revision pad:
https://pad.partidopirata.com.ar/p/parabola-eoma

Others: what do you think of this version? Please acknowledge when you think
it's ready. At this point, revision 310 suits me fine:
https://pad.partidopirata.com.ar/p/parabola-eoma/timeslider#310

However, I would gladly skip the part following "However, it's important to note
that:". Providing details there seems like a very slippery slope and I'd rather
link to relevant posts or information from the campaign page. Better yet,
quoting parts from there would be even more appropriate.

For instance, "2D and video acceleration work well with free software", while
being true, is not precise enough to be a really useful information. Also, the
part about the circuit board is too vague, since only the EOMA68 card (and not
the landing board or laptop board) were said to be withheld.
Post by Adonay Felipe Nogueira
About Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic's message
Indeed, the use of "free software friendly" to also mean "fully free
software" or "freedom-respecting" is a communication noise (article on
Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_noise>).
Basically, in context of marketing (not sales), a communication noise
happens when **either** the senders or receivers of a message
distort-or-misunderstand the message.
Besides, I'm inserting a member of ThinkPenguin as recipient of this
email so as to let him know the issue that Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic found
in ThinkPenguin's website content. This was done so as to make it easier
for ThinkPenguin to see the issue. This **is not** meant to be taken
offensively.
They may agree that it's an issue or not. I don't think it is one.
For the record, you're probably referring to "Company #2" from:
https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004353.html
--
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Christopher Waid
2016-08-24 17:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Isaac David
Post by Adonay Felipe Nogueira
Just now, I **have** subscribed to Parabola's dev mailing list. So I'll
try to catch-up with this topic. :)
I'm inserting libreplanet-discuss and trisquel-users mailing lists as
recipients of this email because of my opinion on Tiberiu-Cezar
Tehnoetic's message
(<https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004353.html>).
I'm also inserting a member of ThinkPenguin as recipient so as to let
him know the issue found by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic, which is
discussed
furthermore in this email.
I agree with Paul Kocialkowski's original message
(<https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004341.html>).
Furthermore, my **last** edit in the original pad
(<https://pad.riseup.net/p/parabola-news-libre-tea-computer>) is perhaps
the most correct one (if the timeslider references don't change over
time, it should be
<https://pad.riseup.net/p/parabola-news-libre-tea-computer/timeslider#2238>, 
saved July 24th, 2016. After this version, the misleading text gets 
added).
https://pad.partidopirata.com.ar/p/parabola-eoma
Others: what do you think of this version? Please acknowledge when you think
https://pad.partidopirata.com.ar/p/parabola-eoma/timeslider#310
However, I would gladly skip the part following "However, it's
important to note
that:". Providing details there seems like a very slippery slope and I'd rather
link to relevant posts or information from the campaign page. Better yet,
quoting parts from there would be even more appropriate.
For instance, "2D and video acceleration work well with free software", while
being true, is not precise enough to be a really useful information. Also, the
part about the circuit board is too vague, since only the EOMA68 card (and not
the landing board or laptop board) were said to be withheld.
Post by Adonay Felipe Nogueira
About Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic's message
Indeed, the use of "free software friendly" to also mean "fully free
software" or "freedom-respecting" is a communication noise (article on
Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_noise>).
Basically, in context of marketing (not sales), a communication noise
happens when **either** the senders or receivers of a message
distort-or-misunderstand the message.
Besides, I'm inserting a member of ThinkPenguin as recipient of this
email so as to let him know the issue that Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic found
in ThinkPenguin's website content. This was done so as to make it easier
for ThinkPenguin to see the issue. This **is not** meant to be taken
offensively.
They may agree that it's an issue or not. I don't think it is one.
https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-August/004353.html
If the world were perfect I might fix this imperfection immediately.
Every small fix takes time though and time is not something we have. We
can't afford to waste it on minor issues. We have many many small issues
yet to deal with after eight years and many many much bigger issues. If
it took a fine tooth comb to find an issue it's probably not worth
dealing with [immediately].

When this text was written LibreBoot didn't exist and I was probably the
only person who had even looked into the possibility of porting CoreBoot
to newer systems or free'ing it [this was around 2009]. It also was the
case that all the core components [chipsets, like wifi, graphics, etc]
were free so within the context of the day it was adequately describing
I think, even if not a perfect choice of words to the extant that
anybody else would have understood them.

When I say big issues I'm talking about things like getting sources
released for newer CPUs/SOCs, reverse engineering components, targeting
the FCC so we can overcome restrictions on the release of and ability to
get code [in practice], designing new hardware, etc.

If you understand and think about the underlying issues and start nit
picking you'd quickly realize not only are we imperfect, but so is the
wording on every other site. We still don't have any free laptops.
Utilizing the word free to describe almost any laptop would be
technically wrong [including systems with LibreBoot]. I can think of one
exception and that is the Ben NanoNote [if this even counts as a laptop,
I wouldn't call it that]. The next best thing is going to be the Libre
Tea Computer Card when combined with the related laptop housing
components [also free] and that's only happening because we've been
sponsoring its development and working with Luke on it for years. Why
this is better is because we have the complete set of code for numerous
components including microcode, keyboard/LCD controller firmware,
bootloader, and more... so yes.. we could go back and fix these ancient
issues nobody has even noticed until now or we could just work on
solving the problems so we can replace these not-quite-perfect systems
with ones that are [which if I understand the issue should also solve
said problems].
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-24 19:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Waid
When this text was written LibreBoot didn't exist
I beg to differ. The text we refer to is from summer 2014 after
SouthEast GNU/Linux Fest 2014 took place on June 20-22, 2014.

https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/short-interview-christopher-waid-about-thinkpenguin-linux-action-show

While FSF awarded the RYF certification to Gluglug for the X60 laptop
preinstalled with deblobbed Coreboot in December 2013.

http://www.fsf.org/news/gluglug-x60-laptop-now-certified-to-respect-your-freedom

And the deblobbed Coreboot has been named Libreboot "during early 2014".
That is, before the summer conference and show edition.

https://libreboot.org/docs/index.html#why

Knowing that, in the beginning of the GNU/Linux Action Show interview
you still falsely stated that ThinkPenguin "makes sure that all the
hardware in your catalog is 100% free software friendly" (57:20). That
includes desktops and laptops.

You went on and said that "every bit of firmware on your laptops is free
software, except for the BIOS which is... outside". (57:26)

Fast forwarding to November 2015 when FSF announces the discounted
ThinkPenguin products for their associate members.

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/fsf-members-now-get-5-off-thinkpenguin-free-software-friendly-devices

Quoting:

"ThinkPenguin sells free software-friendly hardware, including laptops,
desktops, WiFi adapters (useful if your laptop's WiFi can't work with a
free driver), printers and more."

I guess it's convenient to have FSF recommend their associate members
your laptops and desktops with proprietary BIOS 1 month after their 30th
anniversary in October.

Right after in October you were sending off Libreboot founder and lead
developer to go work on free software for GPS devices, because in your
opinion she "would have done better" . You went on and said the effort
to have free BIOS for older laptops "would have been better spent
elsewhere", because getting software freedom-respecting laptops "is a
harder problem to solve and it is going to require massive amounts of
money".

https://trisquel.info/en/forum/asus-chromebook-c201-now-supported-libreboot-arm-cpu?page=1#comment-80943

It's also convenient to let know all FSF associate members that your
devices are OK in respect to freedom:

"5% off free software-friendly devices from ThinkPenguin" --
https://my.fsf.org/

But for you it must be as you say, just a "minor issue" you "can't
afford waste time" on it. For the rest of us, including founder of the
Post by Christopher Waid
IMO, we should teach users to avoid this ambiguous term. Instead of
"free software friendly", they should use the term "compatible with
fully free operating systems" if the hardware is compatible with free
distros endorsed by FSF.
I agree. The FSF could post something about this. I will suggest it
to the campaigns people.
In the long term, I hope that our endorsement, RYF, will set a
standard and that people will come to see other terms, without clear
and strict definitions as inadequate.
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-08-25 09:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
be RYF'd, but we are working on something better than LibreBoot in that 
it solves the free software problems in a more permanent long term way: 
EOMA68. X86 is dead and we do not need LibreBoot for non-X86 systems. 
I'm very surprised to read this. How do we not need Libreboot in general?

Having a fully free bootup software distribution is IMO crucial to pave the road
for free software support. Note that U-Boot includes proprietary software and
should not be included as-is in or recommended by any FSDG-compliant dsitros.

Also, Libreboot is currently based on Coreboot (which, by the way, supports an
increasing number of ARM devices, with Chromebooks) but there's not reason it
can't handle U-Boot in the future too, or whatever other free bootup software.

So with upcoming ARM Chromebooks, the very large number of ARM devices that can
boot up with free software and other interesting platforms such as POWER8 and
POWER9, Libreboot still has a bright future ahead.
The reason this issue hasn't been solved by us is because it's simply 
not possible given Intel's hostility and refusal to cooperate. Reverse 
engineering is a non-trivial task and the resulting code would not run 
on modern Intel systems due to digital signatures.
Of course, we all agree that x86 is a dead-end, at least in the long run. There
are still possibilities with somewhat old Intel and AMD hardware, but these will
be outdated eventually. Also, note that most of these old x86 platforms are
much, much faster than the A20.
We can do a lot more  than what is feasible with LibreBoot, but it has taken
years. Now that EOMA68 crowd funding campaign has succeeded though or is about
to succeed we can do a 100% free software system
Note that the level of free software support brought by the EOMA68 is not really
something new. There have been dozens of computers, some of which come with a
free board design, using platforms that are as good for freedom, especially with
Allwinner (but there are lots of others). The linux-sunxi community has been
working hard on those for years and years, so this is nothing new or specific to
the EOMA68.

Many ARM Chromebooks even go a step further, with a free software embedded
controller firmware.
(that is LibreBoot doesn't magically make a computer 100% free, there are
other problematic components).
Of course, but nobody claimed that it does. It is only a very significant piece
in the software freedom puzzle.
We've got the source code for LCD/Keyboard controller firmware,
Regarding LCD: are you talking about a MIPI interface done in software with a
MCU? Please feel free to share details about this LCD controller firmware, I'd
be very interested to learn more about it, it sounds unusual!
bootloaders, CPU micro code
Huh? Again, please share details about the CPU microcodes. I am not aware of any
ARMv7 implementation using a microcode at all, nor of any that was liberated.
and similar for the EOMA68 laptop housing and Libre Tea Computer Card. That's
huge. And there are more significant developments coming including the release
of schematics and higher end CPUs.
I fully agree that this is great and I support your project. However, keep in
mind that this is nothing new or groundbreaking (not to undermine the project
and the efforts associated with it).
--
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Christopher Waid
2016-08-25 18:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Hi,
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
shouldn't
be RYF'd, but we are working on something better than LibreBoot in
that
it solves the free software problems in a more permanent long term
EOMA68. X86 is dead and we do not need LibreBoot for non-X86 systems.
I'm very surprised to read this. How do we not need Libreboot in general?
Having a fully free bootup software distribution is IMO crucial to pave the road
for free software support. Note that U-Boot includes proprietary software and
should not be included as-is in or recommended by any FSDG-compliant dsitros.
Also, Libreboot is currently based on Coreboot (which, by the way, supports an
increasing number of ARM devices, with Chromebooks) but there's not reason it
can't handle U-Boot in the future too, or whatever other free bootup software.
So with upcoming ARM Chromebooks, the very large number of ARM devices that can
boot up with free software and other interesting platforms such as POWER8 and
POWER9, Libreboot still has a bright future ahead.
We already have completely free versions of Uboot for various ARM and
MIPS devices. All of our routers have shipped with the complete set of
source code for the OS and bootloader. The devices are RYF certified and
do not contain any proprietary bits in the version of Uboot run on our
routers.

https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/free-software-wireless-n-mini-vpn-router-tpe-r1100

I want to make it clear that I don't dislike LibreBoot and I'm not
saying it has no value. It's value right now to me is clear. It's 100%
free software for what is otherwise proprietary. I value that. As we
move away from X86 the value in it from a freedom-perspective will
diminish as alternatives exist. In that position I would begin to think
about alternative projects to work on if my primary focus was advancing
software freedom.

What I believe will make it valuable to people down the line will be
functionality (within the free software community and maybe even
beyond). I don't know what this functionality is right now and I simply
know that it's got value to some use case still. If I had to take an
educated guess I'd probably say it has functionality which is useful to
system administrators in server environments. From what I understand of
CoreBoot from which LibreBoot is derived that functionality was what has
in the past spurred CoreBoot's adoption by those outside the free
software world.

If servers were a high priority for us (they aren't) I'd probably be
pushing/sponsoring LibreBoot. I was the first person to suggest
LibreBoot add a donation option. Right now our focus is on laptops,
desktops, and typical end-user hardware. I want to see GNU/Linux and
free software adopted by the masses. It's largely won in the server
arena and there is a huge market opportunity here for free software
servers to anyone who wished to pursue it.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
The reason this issue hasn't been solved by us is because it's simply
not possible given Intel's hostility and refusal to cooperate. Reverse
engineering is a non-trivial task and the resulting code would not run
on modern Intel systems due to digital signatures.
Of course, we all agree that x86 is a dead-end, at least in the long run. There
are still possibilities with somewhat old Intel and AMD hardware, but these will
be outdated eventually. Also, note that most of these old x86 platforms are
much, much faster than the A20.
Of course. The solution isn't intended to outperform. It's intended to
solve a problem. That problem is X86 doesn't work for us and it's too
costly to have to design and manufacture our own non-x86 hardware (which
is critical given all newer non-X86 hardware is dependent on other
proprietary components such as 802.11ac wifi chips). The solution to
that is modularization. This has a side benefit of making it easy and
cheap (relatively speaking, and therefore feasible) to manufacture new
'models' in addition to giving us inroads to obtain source code for
higher end CPUs [moving forward]. Even ones that aren't yet on the
market! That's a huge change to the two steps forward one step back we
were doing before. Right now we are several years behind because of our
dependence on X86 and companies who won't cooperate. By moving away and
modularizing we can let companies designing CPUs cater to our demands.
This is what you get from competition.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
We can do a lot more than what is feasible with LibreBoot, but it has
taken
years. Now that EOMA68 crowd funding campaign has succeeded though or is about
to succeed we can do a 100% free software system
Note that the level of free software support brought by the EOMA68 is not really
something new.
This is incorrect or a misunderstanding of the value here. Its taken
years and a lot of reverse engineering to get the Allwinner A20
supported. While the first computer card is in part built off the work
of others at a component level it's not the value for which I'm
referring that EOMA68 adds in relation to free software. The value is in
the modular standard and what it is enabling us to do in the free
software world. To look at the CPU and components individually is to
misunderstand the value in this project. It was not essential that we
utilize the Allwinner A20. It just made a lot of sense given the work
others have already done including the work of Luke (for which we
sponsored). The value is we get to pick and choose each part that goes
into a system and when one company upstream doesn't cooperate we can
look elsewhere. We don't have to spend years reverse engineering parts
thereof when we can work in collaboration with the companies upstream
doing the design of these CPUs/SOCs. To achieve that we need control
over the design and manufacturing process. This is not something we had
before. This is not something most companies have. Most companies build
off of reference designs and the product designs are little different
than the reference designs in many if not most cases. A tweak or two at
best.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
There have been dozens of computers, some of which come with a
free board design, using platforms that are as good for freedom, especially with
Allwinner (but there are lots of others). The linux-sunxi community has been
working hard on those for years and years, so this is nothing new or specific to
the EOMA68.
Many ARM Chromebooks even go a step further, with a free software embedded
controller firmware.
I'm in many cases referring to laptop designs. This isn't totally
correct though particularly as it relates to laptops. All of the ARM
Chromebooks have fundamental problems in one way or the other. There are
no free software friendly 802.11ac wifi chips and these wifi chips are
integrated on every single modern Chromebook that is readily available
[last I checked]. You can't easily replace these chips like you can with
X86. To solve this problem and many others in the process is to gain
control over the overall design and what you can utilize as your
building blocks. With the laptop housing that is part of this crowd
funding campaign you'll be able to get an Allwinner dual-core A20 on the
Libre Tea Computer Card today and upgrade to a quad-core CPU tomorrow.
It won't cost $500 either. It'll be under $100.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
(that is LibreBoot doesn't magically make a computer 100% free, there are
other problematic components).
Of course, but nobody claimed that it does. It is only a very
significant piece
in the software freedom puzzle.
It's one of many pieces. It's not quite as significant as people think.
If it were gone it wouldn't really make any difference.

There are many components for which we are dependent and there are no
alternative options. Wifi firmwares are a great example. We have only
one driver and chip for modern 802.11n that we can utilize (AR9271) and
nothing for 802.11ac (in any format, PCIE/M.2/USB). It won't be the case
that we can get AR9271 adapters manufactured forever and at some point
it will become critical that we work on obtaining sources [another
project we're working on].

Wifi cards are fundamental to modern computers. You can still get away
without 3D acceleration, but good luck with a system that doesn't have
internet connectivity.

There are zero good options for graphics right now too. Graphics are not
quite critical because we can ship without it for the moment and the
user experience is still "good enough", but it is certainly more
important than LibreBoot.

LibreBoot is a duplication of effort as far as critical components are
concerned and we should try to avoid duplication of efforts given the
limited resources available.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
We've got the source code for LCD/Keyboard controller firmware,
Regarding LCD: are you talking about a MIPI interface done in software with a
MCU? Please feel free to share details about this LCD controller firmware, I'd
be very interested to learn more about it, it sounds unusual!
I know a little bit about it, but not enough to give you details. The
details are readily available though.

Unlike many 'free' projects everything has been and is being documented.
There is one piece that hasn't been published yet (schematics, but this
isn't a libre issue, you can have a libre system and a non-libre design,
however full schematics will be released shortly, there is almost no
libre-designs that are actually libre because most are dependent on
non-free components like wifi chips that depend on proprietary
drivers/firmware), but its coming. Luke was a bit concerned of attacks
on our efforts before the campaign was finished. With good reason. There
was already one effort to undercut the project that failed. Someone Luke
had talked to began a crowd funding campaign to raise funds for a
modular computer. They did not care about freedom nor did they have an
actual prototype. If it wasn't a fraud they would have had to have
designed it after the fact. They created fake drawings/mock ups and
similar. Unlike the many crowd funding efforts out there we actually
have working prototypes because we funded his work.

This said contact lkcl at lkcl.net and he can get you hacking on it if
you want to help out. This is a community endeavor and there are other
people working on adding support for different language keyboards and
similar (a French layout).
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
bootloaders, CPU micro code
Huh? Again, please share details about the CPU microcodes. I am not aware of any
ARMv7 implementation using a microcode at all, nor of any that was liberated.
Overgeneralized. As far as the A20 goes you are correct. I can confirm
that there is no micro code in this particular CPU.

I'll throw out some other words that may make more sense here:

SPL uboot in mainline 2015-10- ddr3 timeings initialization and pll
clocks.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
and similar for the EOMA68 laptop housing and Libre Tea Computer Card. That's
huge. And there are more significant developments coming including the release
of schematics and higher end CPUs.
I fully agree that this is great and I support your project. However, keep in
mind that this is nothing new or groundbreaking (not to undermine the project
and the efforts associated with it).
I disagree. There is simply nothing you can compare this project to. We
are achieving results that can't be demonstrated via any other means. If
we could get here some other way at a lower cost with the same long term
impact I would have gone that route.

The issue is your looking at one thing. A few specs. It's not the specs
that matter. It's the standard, it's the modularization, it's the
response and cooperation we are getting already as a result of our
actions here, etc. Intel and AMD are not going to cooperate and building
off of other companies products (higher up the chain) is not a reliable
long term solution.
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-09-10 18:56:04 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

I'm digging this up because Christopher raised a few points I would like to
answer. Since it is no longer about the Parabola blog article, but rather about
EOMA68 and freedom in digital technology in general, I changed the subject.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
shouldn't
be RYF'd, but we are working on something better than LibreBoot in 
that
it solves the free software problems in a more permanent long term 
EOMA68. X86 is dead and we do not need LibreBoot for non-X86 systems.
I'm very surprised to read this. How do we not need Libreboot in 
general?
Having a fully free bootup software distribution is IMO crucial to pave 
the road
for free software support. Note that U-Boot includes proprietary 
software and
should not be included as-is in or recommended by any FSDG-compliant 
dsitros.
Also, Libreboot is currently based on Coreboot (which, by the way, 
supports an
increasing number of ARM devices, with Chromebooks) but there's not 
reason it
can't handle U-Boot in the future too, or whatever other free bootup 
software.
So with upcoming ARM Chromebooks, the very large number of ARM devices 
that can
boot up with free software and other interesting platforms such as 
POWER8 and
POWER9, Libreboot still has a bright future ahead.
We already have completely free versions of Uboot for various ARM and 
MIPS devices. All of our routers have shipped with the complete set of 
source code for the OS and bootloader. The devices are RYF certified and 
do not contain any proprietary bits in the version of Uboot run on our 
routers.
Of course, but U-Boot is not a fully free software project and does not provide
binary releases anyway. I do agree that it is extremely easy to come up with a
fully free binary release of it for a number of boards.
https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/free-software-wireless-n-mini-vpn-
router-tpe-r1100
I want to make it clear that I don't dislike LibreBoot and I'm not 
saying it has no value. It's value right now to me is clear. It's 100% 
free software for what is otherwise proprietary. I value that. As we 
move away from X86 the value in it from a freedom-perspective will 
diminish as alternatives exist. In that position I would begin to think 
about alternative projects to work on if my primary focus was advancing 
software freedom.
This is because you are, for some reason, associating Libreboot with x86. There
is no particular reason to do this, and I'm working to add support for ARM
devices in Libreboot. MIPS devices could also be integrated as well. OpenPOWER
support is also planned to get integrated in Libreboot.
What I believe will make it valuable to people down the line will be 
functionality (within the free software community and maybe even 
beyond). I don't know what this functionality is right now and I simply 
know that it's got value to some use case still. If I had to take an 
educated guess I'd probably say it has functionality which is useful to 
system administrators in server environments. From what I understand of 
CoreBoot from which LibreBoot is derived that functionality was what has 
in the past spurred CoreBoot's adoption by those outside the free 
software world.
I'm not sure extra functionalities are a requirement, but having something that
works properly probably is. We are working hard to achieve that, on every aspect
of free software support at the lower levels. However, I truly hope that we
someday only have to care about adding new features, over getting the basics to
work.
If servers were a high priority for us (they aren't) I'd probably be 
pushing/sponsoring LibreBoot. I was the first person to suggest 
LibreBoot add a donation option. Right now our focus is on laptops, 
desktops, and typical end-user hardware. I want to see GNU/Linux and 
free software adopted by the masses. It's largely won in the server 
arena and there is a huge market opportunity here for free software 
servers to anyone who wished to pursue it.
Well, I don't like the idea to narrow our efforts to specific use cases or types
of users. Different people and entities have different needs. Some do need to
use servers. Frankly, I'd rather try and support every aspect of digital
technology out there rather than voluntarily restrict the scope of what should
be worked on.

And anyway, there isn't so much stuff we actually have the ability to free, so I
think this is what drives what we can actually do to the largest extent. Also,
given the best-effort nature of all this, I think people tend to work on what
they personally like/need, and I think this is fine.

This is, of course, assuming a community approach and already existing devices.
Your approach, which is about producing devices, is indeed quite different and
you probably need to target an audience there. But then again, I'm happy to see
that different companies are working on liberating different areas of digital
technology by producing devices for that purpose.

You pick what seems to make the most sense to you, others will pick something
else and if enough people do that, we may just cover a large part of the
spectrum!
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
The reason this issue hasn't been solved by us is because it's simply
not possible given Intel's hostility and refusal to cooperate. Reverse
engineering is a non-trivial task and the resulting code would not run
on modern Intel systems due to digital signatures.
Of course, we all agree that x86 is a dead-end, at least in the long 
run. There
are still possibilities with somewhat old Intel and AMD hardware, but 
these will
be outdated eventually. Also, note that most of these old x86 platforms 
are
much, much faster than the A20.
Of course. The solution isn't intended to outperform. It's intended to 
solve a problem. That problem is X86 doesn't work for us and it's too 
costly to have to design and manufacture our own non-x86 hardware (which 
is critical given all newer non-X86 hardware is dependent on other 
proprietary components such as 802.11ac wifi chips).
My point is that not all x86 hardware is doomed. With some work, some AMD
platforms could work with fully free software. Thus, I'm not saying it's a
solution to the problem, I'm saying it gets rid of the problem, on those
specific devices.

But of course, since we're talking about old platforms, this approach is quite
limited in time. So it is likely that such computers will either become too
rare, obsolete in some aspects, or will simply be outperformed by newer
generations of computers that can run with fully free software as well.
The solution to 
that is modularization. This has a side benefit of making it easy and 
cheap (relatively speaking, and therefore feasible) to manufacture new 
'models' in addition to giving us inroads to obtain source code for 
higher end CPUs [moving forward]. Even ones that aren't yet on the 
market! That's a huge change to the two steps forward one step back we 
were doing before. Right now we are several years behind because of our 
dependence on X86 and companies who won't cooperate. By moving away and 
modularizing we can let companies designing CPUs cater to our demands. 
This is what you get from competition.
I agree modularization is nice, but I don't think it fundamentally changes the
game regarding freedom, but more of a practical, nice feature to have. For some
other aspects, like environment-related ones, it is of course quite fundamental
though.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
We can do a lot more  than what is feasible with LibreBoot, but it has 
taken
years. Now that EOMA68 crowd funding campaign has succeeded though or 
is about
to succeed we can do a 100% free software system
Note that the level of free software support brought by the EOMA68 is 
not really
something new.
This is incorrect or a misunderstanding of the value here. Its taken 
years and a lot of reverse engineering to get the Allwinner A20 
supported. While the first computer card is in part built off the work 
of others at a component level it's not the value for which I'm 
referring that EOMA68 adds in relation to free software. The value is in 
the modular standard and what it is enabling us to do in the free 
software world. To look at the CPU and components individually is to 
misunderstand the value in this project. It was not essential that we 
utilize the Allwinner A20. It just made a lot of sense given the work 
others have already done including the work of Luke (for which we 
sponsored). The value is we get to pick and choose each part that goes 
into a system and when one company upstream doesn't cooperate we can 
look elsewhere. We don't have to spend years reverse engineering parts 
thereof when we can work in collaboration with the companies upstream 
doing the design of these CPUs/SOCs. To achieve that we need control 
over the design and manufacturing process. This is not something we had 
before. This is not something most companies have. Most companies build 
off of reference designs and the product designs are little different 
than the reference designs in many if not most cases. A tweak or two at 
best.
Again, I don't see why modularity changes the game here. The problem has never
really been the lack of acceptable hardware. ARM Chromebooks are such an
example. There have been countless other Allwinner boards, such as the ones from
Olimex, that do very well with free software. For each possible platform that is
somewhat interesting to free software, there are already boards available.

The way I see it, the EOMA68 is a i+1 iteration of this. Most certainly a much
better one than most of the ones before, but not a game changer still. Again,
just to be perfectly clear, this is not to undermine the project. All iterations
that are better than the previous ones are leaps forward, and that's the way to
go!
There have been dozens of computers, some of which come with a
free board design, using platforms that are as good for freedom, 
especially with
Allwinner (but there are lots of others). The linux-sunxi community has 
been
working hard on those for years and years, so this is nothing new or 
specific to
the EOMA68.
Many ARM Chromebooks even go a step further, with a free software 
embedded
controller firmware.
I'm in many cases referring to laptop designs. This isn't totally 
correct though particularly as it relates to laptops. All of the ARM 
Chromebooks have fundamental problems in one way or the other. There are 
no free software friendly 802.11ac wifi chips and these wifi chips are 
integrated on every single modern Chromebook that is readily available 
[last I checked]. You can't easily replace these chips like you can with 
X86.
This is correct, but is also a detail because it has never really been a
problem. Sticking-in an ath9k_htc dongle solves the issue with nearly zero
associated drawbacks (and we can thank you for that). 
To solve this problem and many others in the process is to gain 
control over the overall design and what you can utilize as your 
building blocks.
Of course, but anyone designing a board can do that. This is what was done with
EOMA68, that extra step was taken. Modularity is only a flexible, practically
convenient way to achieve that, but the problem has never been there.
With the laptop housing that is part of this crowd 
funding campaign you'll be able to get an Allwinner dual-core A20 on the 
Libre Tea Computer Card today and upgrade to a quad-core CPU tomorrow. 
It won't cost $500 either. It'll be under $100.
To contrast, I personally fully support this approach (especially from the
environmental perspective). I'm just saying, it's not a game changer on the
freedom perspective.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
(that is LibreBoot doesn't magically make a computer 100% free, there 
are
other problematic components).
Of course, but nobody claimed that it does. It is only a very 
significant piece
in the software freedom puzzle.
It's one of many pieces. It's not quite as significant as people think. 
If it were gone it wouldn't really make any difference.
Note that by Libreboot, I mean "fully free bootup software" in general,
regardless of the boards that are currently supported. This is what Libreboot is
and targets, and it'll grow to cover as many of the boards it can support as
possible.

So what I meant is that fully free bootup software is a significant piece in the
software freedom puzzle. Perhaps the most crucial one.
There are many components for which we are dependent and there are no 
alternative options. Wifi firmwares are a great example. We have only 
one driver and chip for modern 802.11n that we can utilize (AR9271) and 
nothing for 802.11ac (in any format, PCIE/M.2/USB). It won't be the case 
that we can get AR9271 adapters manufactured forever and at some point 
it will become critical that we work on obtaining sources [another 
project we're working on].
I fully agree. Technology moving so fast really doesn't help either. I'm truly
grateful that people like you are working hard to keep up the pace and make sure
free software remains relevant and freedom is still a possibility without living
ten years in the past.
Wifi cards are fundamental to modern computers. You can still get away 
without 3D acceleration, but good luck with a system that doesn't have 
internet connectivity.
Agreed, without a doubt.
There are zero good options for graphics right now too. Graphics are not 
quite critical because we can ship without it for the moment and the 
user experience is still "good enough",
Well, it would be unfair to say that the situation is that bad. Drivers such as
nouveau support cards (with free firmwares in many cases, by the way) that are
not tied to any specific architecture (not only x86 uses PCI) and there are
efforts to support GPUs embedded in ARM SoCs, such as Freedreno and Etnaviv (and
nouveau, too). I think this is all valuable and shows that we're going
somewhere. Maybe not as fast as we'd all like, but the amount of work is huge.
LibreBoot is a duplication of effort as far as critical components are 
concerned and we should try to avoid duplication of efforts given the 
limited resources available.
This sounds particularly wrong to me. You're assuming a specific structure here,
very much company-like, where a group of people get to decide of the directions
for the group and others follow. This is not how our community works. Our
community is best-effort based, so different people (or different companies)
will work on different things as they please.

I find it quite strange to make claims that suggest we should all follow one
specific direction. People just do what they want to do. This is the mostly
natural things for way to work in our community, and I have no doubt that they
will keep working this way for a long time.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
We've got the source code for LCD/Keyboard controller firmware,
Regarding LCD: are you talking about a MIPI interface done in software 
with a
MCU? Please feel free to share details about this LCD controller 
firmware, I'd
be very interested to learn more about it, it sounds unusual!
I know a little bit about it, but not enough to give you details. The 
details are readily available though.
Okay, I'd be interested in those details out of curiosity, if you'd like to
point me to them (I can take no for an answer, this is asking you to do some
extra research work, that you can certainly do much more efficiently than me).
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
bootloaders, CPU micro code
Huh? Again, please share details about the CPU microcodes. I am not 
aware of any
ARMv7 implementation using a microcode at all, nor of any that was 
liberated.
Overgeneralized. As far as the A20 goes you are correct. I can confirm 
that there is no micro code in this particular CPU.
That makes sense.
SPL uboot in mainline 2015-10- ddr3 timeings initialization and pll 
clocks.
Yup, the community sure did a great work there. RAM init is always the trickiest
part of bootup and in that case, Allwinner only barely helped (or when they did,
most of it had already been figured out IIRC).
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
and similar for the EOMA68 laptop housing and Libre Tea Computer Card. 
That's
huge. And there are more significant developments coming including the 
release
of schematics and higher end CPUs.
I fully agree that this is great and I support your project. However, 
keep in
mind that this is nothing new or groundbreaking (not to undermine the 
project
and the efforts associated with it).
I disagree. There is simply nothing you can compare this project to. We 
are achieving results that can't be demonstrated via any other means. If 
we could get here some other way at a lower cost with the same long term 
impact I would have gone that route.
See what Olimex has been doing for years then. They're also coming up with a
laptop design. I agree that you went steps further than most before, but this is
incremental improvement, not something truly new and groundbreaking compared to
what existed before.
The issue is your looking at one thing. A few specs. It's not the specs 
that matter. It's the standard, it's the modularization, it's the 
response and cooperation we are getting already as a result of our 
actions here, etc. Intel and AMD are not going to cooperate and building 
off of other companies products (higher up the chain) is not a reliable 
long term solution.
Again, I don't see how modularization changes anything here. Hardware
availability has never been the problem. For laptops, we only had minor
annoyances, like Wi-Fi chips that require proprietary firmwares, with the most
advanced designs for freedom like ARM Chromebooks. So you took a step forward
there. It's not a revolution, it's a step forward: solving the (minor) Wi-Fi
issue. For single-board computers, you didn't bring any specific improvement
over Olimex's Allwinner boards.

Again, I don't want to sound like your project doesn't matter to me, because it
really does. Only that it's an improved iteration over what exists rather than
whole new ground. And that's totally fine by the way, it is a very sane way to
go. It also shows that you're not the only person on earth caring about these
issues and producing hardware that solves an increasing number of them (even
though I suspect some other players produce devices with such results without
really aiming at that goal).

So overall, thanks for your work :)
--
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Christopher Waid
2016-09-20 08:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
I want to make it clear that I don't dislike LibreBoot and I'm not 
saying it has no value. It's value right now to me is clear. It's
100% 
free software for what is otherwise proprietary. I value that. As we 
move away from X86 the value in it from a freedom-perspective will 
diminish as alternatives exist. In that position I would begin to
think 
about alternative projects to work on if my primary focus was
advancing 
software freedom.
This is because you are, for some reason, associating Libreboot with
x86.
I'm not. I'm saying it's only value to the cause of free'ing hardware if
you are doing it on older X86 systems. On non-x86 systems there are
other free bootloaders. It's a duplication of work. Even if LibreBoot
has functionality it doesn't help the goal of freeing a given system.

Within the work I'm concerned about I don't care if LibreBoot makes
dozens of systems freer. What I care about is getting *just one* system
as free as it can possibly get and be usable/well supported/etc. Those
who care about maximizing freedom will hop ship and they will compromise
functionality if needed to achieve that freedom. I don't see any reason
to utilize LibreBoot over [a free version of] uboot within that context
either as it stands now. I'm not intimately familiar with LibreBoot mind
you, but from what I understand this is the case. Maybe if there is a
feature LibreBoot provided then sure, we'd use it, but from what I've
been told there are better alternatives to LibreBoot already from a
functionality/size stand point anyway on non-X86 platforms. Obviously
it's more complicated than I'm making it out to be here... but at least
for what we're currently looking at in terms of maximizing freedom some
version of uboot is the way to go.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
There
is no particular reason to do this, and I'm working to add support for ARM
devices in Libreboot. MIPS devices could also be integrated as well. OpenPOWER
support is also planned to get integrated in Libreboot.
I only care about freeing devices, not whether LibreBoot works on
something, I don't care how many devices LibreBoot works on. That's not
something that matters in my opinion if there is already something else
we can utilize. Certainly there will be people who'd rather go with an
older system prone to failure that is slightly more powerful and less
free and LibreBoot might be the only option in those contexts, but this
is limited to X86. All other systems are pretty much problematic that
LibreBoot might hope to work on [OpenPower might be an exception if it
ever gets off the ground, but how needed it is I don't know, maybe uboot
works here too, I just don't know].

If you make it work with stuff where there are not other options then it
might become an interesting project from my perspective.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
What I believe will make it valuable to people down the line will be 
functionality (within the free software community and maybe even 
beyond). I don't know what this functionality is right now and I
simply 
know that it's got value to some use case still. If I had to take an 
educated guess I'd probably say it has functionality which is useful
to 
system administrators in server environments. From what I understand
of 
CoreBoot from which LibreBoot is derived that functionality was what
has 
in the past spurred CoreBoot's adoption by those outside the free 
software world.
I'm not sure extra functionalities are a requirement, but having something that
works properly probably is. We are working hard to achieve that, on every aspect
of free software support at the lower levels. However, I truly hope that we
someday only have to care about adding new features, over getting the basics to
work.
Yea- I'd like to see a time come when functionality is something I have
the luxury to worry about. Right now my focus is maximizing freedom. And
by that I mean doing whatever is in my power to get devices out there
where we don't need proprietary bits. I don't want to be dependent on
proprietary keyboard controller or LCD controller or hard disk firmware
or CPU micro code or... the list goes on...

The bootloader problem is solved in my mind already so getting LibreBoot
working on non-X86 systems just doesn't matter to me. It may matter to
others, but not to me.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
If servers were a high priority for us (they aren't) I'd probably be 
pushing/sponsoring LibreBoot. I was the first person to suggest 
LibreBoot add a donation option. Right now our focus is on laptops, 
desktops, and typical end-user hardware. I want to see GNU/Linux and 
free software adopted by the masses. It's largely won in the server 
arena and there is a huge market opportunity here for free software 
servers to anyone who wished to pursue it.
Well, I don't like the idea to narrow our efforts to specific use cases or types
of users. Different people and entities have different needs. Some do need to
use servers. Frankly, I'd rather try and support every aspect of digital
technology out there rather than voluntarily restrict the scope of what should
be worked on.
Well, I think you have to narrow your efforts at first. Even with
LibreBoot you started with narrower efforts and expanded outward. It
wasn't the case that LibreBoot supported non-X86 at first. That came
later.

In my situation we're not focused on a bootloader. We're focused on the
bigger picture so once that bootloader is done it doesn't matter if it
only works on select systems because those select systems are going to
provide the maximum freedom possible. I'd rather move on to other
components, like wifi chipsets, or graphics components that we may not
be able to utilize with free software or the systems may not have.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
And anyway, there isn't so much stuff we actually have the ability to free, so I
think this is what drives what we can actually do to the largest extent. Also,
given the best-effort nature of all this, I think people tend to work on what
they personally like/need, and I think this is fine.
Absolutely. If you don't have the skills/interest to focus on the other
stuff your best to focus on the stuff you do have the skills to solve.

What I have tried to say to certain other people working on LibreBoot in
the past was I think your/these types of skills can be better put to use
working on similar types of projects for which no one else is working
on. This is what I would do, but I have an interest in such a device,
maybe not everyone else does with these skills. The example I gave is a
GPS navigation device. It would seem one who has the skills to work on a
project like LibreBoot would also be able to work on a free GPS
navigation device.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
This is, of course, assuming a community approach and already existing devices.
Your approach, which is about producing devices, is indeed quite different and
you probably need to target an audience there. But then again, I'm happy to see
that different companies are working on liberating different areas of digital
technology by producing devices for that purpose.
You pick what seems to make the most sense to you, others will pick something
else and if enough people do that, we may just cover a large part of the
spectrum!
Yup- and I'm trying to enable those with abilities and interests in
hacking on relevant critical areas via whatever means and resources are
at my disposal through the work I'm doing.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
The reason this issue hasn't been solved by us is because it's simply
not possible given Intel's hostility and refusal to cooperate. Reverse
engineering is a non-trivial task and the resulting code would not run
on modern Intel systems due to digital signatures.
Of course, we all agree that x86 is a dead-end, at least in the long 
run. There
are still possibilities with somewhat old Intel and AMD hardware, but 
these will
be outdated eventually. Also, note that most of these old x86 platforms 
are
much, much faster than the A20.
Of course. The solution isn't intended to outperform. It's intended
to 
solve a problem. That problem is X86 doesn't work for us and it's too 
costly to have to design and manufacture our own non-x86 hardware
(which 
is critical given all newer non-X86 hardware is dependent on other 
proprietary components such as 802.11ac wifi chips).
My point is that not all x86 hardware is doomed. With some work, some AMD
platforms could work with fully free software. Thus, I'm not saying it's a
solution to the problem, I'm saying it gets rid of the problem, on those
specific devices.
Yes- but these are older and still going to fail. 10 year old systems
are prone to failure because of changes which occurred. Legal changes in
the law many years ago.

I think there might be some Intel Atom stuff that might sort of work
still or I should see be a potential candidate today. I guess it might
not be completely dead for X86. However I think there are other reasons
besides this that X86 should be considered dead. We need to expand the
variety of companies we can choose from in order to ensure or reduce the
risk. By sticking with X86 we increase our risks.

The whole point of EOMA68 is to put the very low level components in our
hands to control. We're not dependent on Intel or AMD or any particular
company. It's a means of expanding and cutting the cost of design and
manufacture. It more fully puts the control of new systems and what
components are used into the hands of the free software community. This
is why we've funded this. It solves more than one issue. It's solves
keyboard/LCD controller firmware/various problems with CPU micro
code/management engine firmware/hard disk firmwares/etc.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
But of course, since we're talking about old platforms, this approach is quite
limited in time. So it is likely that such computers will either become too
rare, obsolete in some aspects, or will simply be outperformed by newer
generations of computers that can run with fully free software as well.
Yes. This is what I've been trying to say. I wanted to skip over all of
this, but it's taken years to get to a point where we could even begin
to solve the problem properly and to put money into freeing ancient X86
hardware was a losing battle. There was good reason not to take that
path as far back as 2009 when I first looked into that approach. It made
more sense to try a new approach which is why we've been funding EOMA68.
I think EOMA68 will work even if its a bit difficult to see right now.
Yes- the current EOMA68 designs aren't that powerful, but we are in full
control and it'll be much cheaper and more practical and thus feasible
to ship higher end hardware in the very near future. Whereas LibreBoot
will be stuck on either older X86 hardware or it'll be put onto
ChromeBooks that are dependent on critical components like wifi that are
all dependent on non-free firmwares [at least for systems you could
reasonably get in volume].

Now OpenPOWER (or TALOS really) is really a separate project of which I
don't know how much LibreBoot really matters for it to work or how
likely it is to succeed (or do so long term). It's a hardware project
ultimately. Hopefully it succeeds, but I'll be holding my breath, and
it's not really something that is going to hit your average user. Which
seems means it looks like a pretty risky endeavor to me. Hopefully they
have a plan and the marketing to hit the target customer base its
presumably being designed for. It seems like a niche of a niche market
that could be hard to market to short of having specialized knowledge
and maybe even working from within one of a handful certain large
companies. However I don't know. It's not our customer base. I do know a
lot of people who would love to buy such a system- but very few have the
kind of money needed to actually buy one. Thus I again see this as very
risky/highly prone to fail. Hopefully I'm wrong though and its a really
awesome solution if the price were ever to drop into a range where your
average person could get one.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
The solution to 
that is modularization. This has a side benefit of making it easy and 
cheap (relatively speaking, and therefore feasible) to manufacture
new 
'models' in addition to giving us inroads to obtain source code for 
higher end CPUs [moving forward]. Even ones that aren't yet on the 
market! That's a huge change to the two steps forward one step back
we 
were doing before. Right now we are several years behind because of
our 
dependence on X86 and companies who won't cooperate. By moving away
and 
modularizing we can let companies designing CPUs cater to our
demands. 
This is what you get from competition.
I agree modularization is nice, but I don't think it fundamentally changes the
game regarding freedom, but more of a practical, nice feature to have. For some
other aspects, like environment-related ones, it is of course quite fundamental
though.
Yea- it's hard to get people to understand how this is going to enable
freedom. All I can say is if you don't get it- well- just wait- we've
already moved the bar significantly. We have a modern laptop and desktop
design capable of 1080p video that isn't dependent on any proprietary
pieces. Not even a proprietary keyboard/LCD controller. By modularizing
key components we get the price down so not only can we get two devices
out of this we can get many more down the road that wouldn't otherwise
be possible. There is a limited amount of $$$ within the free software
community to throw at such projects so by modularizing things it can get
the cost of key components down drastically and you can then manufacture
housings for a fraction of the down payment that would be needed if you
needed to do everything. It also enables us to get to a point where we
have influence over the companies designing key components. For multiple
reasons. One because we can switch companies easily now whereas we
couldn't before. And two because the volume of the key components jumps
significantly when you start talking about a card that can go into lots
of different devices rather than a motherboard that'll have a severely
limited manufacturing run otherwise.

We've already had many successes as a result of this crowd funding
campaign and approach. It's radically altering the landscape of what is
possible given the limited funding available within the free software
and GNU/Linux world.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
We can do a lot more  than what is feasible with LibreBoot, but it has 
taken
years. Now that EOMA68 crowd funding campaign has succeeded though or 
is about
to succeed we can do a 100% free software system
Note that the level of free software support brought by the EOMA68 is 
not really
something new.
This is incorrect or a misunderstanding of the value here. Its taken 
years and a lot of reverse engineering to get the Allwinner A20 
supported. While the first computer card is in part built off the
work 
of others at a component level it's not the value for which I'm 
referring that EOMA68 adds in relation to free software. The value is
in 
the modular standard and what it is enabling us to do in the free 
software world. To look at the CPU and components individually is to 
misunderstand the value in this project. It was not essential that we 
utilize the Allwinner A20. It just made a lot of sense given the work 
others have already done including the work of Luke (for which we 
sponsored). The value is we get to pick and choose each part that
goes 
into a system and when one company upstream doesn't cooperate we can 
look elsewhere. We don't have to spend years reverse engineering
parts 
thereof when we can work in collaboration with the companies upstream 
doing the design of these CPUs/SOCs. To achieve that we need control 
over the design and manufacturing process. This is not something we
had 
before. This is not something most companies have. Most companies
build 
off of reference designs and the product designs are little different 
than the reference designs in many if not most cases. A tweak or two
at 
best.
Again, I don't see why modularity changes the game here. The problem has never
really been the lack of acceptable hardware. ARM Chromebooks are such an
example. There have been countless other Allwinner boards, such as the ones from
Olimex, that do very well with free software. For each possible platform that is
somewhat interesting to free software, there are already boards available.
There are zero laptops, tablets, or phones that are 100% free today.
Every readily available Chromebook has critical components that are
dependent proprietary bits. 802.11ac wifi is a great example of this.
These systems are not designed for free software users even if we can
steal some of the work done by Google on Chromebooks for use in EOMA68
laptop housings.

There is a big difference between these mini board computers and what
EOMA68 will enable. EOMA68 is a standard and will reduce the cost of
getting all sorts of different types of devices manufactured down the
road because the key components don't have to be manufactured in small
quantities any more thus reducing the cost of the overall devices. The
cost of the laptop housing wasn't a whole heck of a lot. But if you
tried to get a laptop housing plus computer card manufactured (which
would have been significantly more expensive because of the reduce
demand) this project would have failed. It took three essentially
different 'products' to make the financial aspect of this project work.
In the future if you design a housing for say a tablet you won't have to
raise the money to manufacture what amounts to be the
motherboard/CPU/ram if you design it around the EOMA68 standard. And
because EOMA68 isn't just a single computer card, but it is a standard
for which other computer cards can be designed all these devices can be
upgraded at a fraction of the cost. You don't have to spend $1500 to
replace the entire laptop. You just have to replace the computer card in
the EOMA68 compatible laptop housing to go from a dual-core system to
quad-core system.

Yike! That's awesome. There is no way you'd be able to pull off a
project like this if it wasn't modular. You would never have been able
to produce a freedom-friendly long-lived laptop if it was a single board
for a single chassis. It would have cost $200,000 just for the
manufacturing and the campaign evidenced we wouldn't have even hit that
number. The number of laptop housing sold combined with one computer
card for each was significantly below the $200,000 number.

At the same time taking a ChromeBook, throwing LibreBoot on it, etc
won't make it as free as this EOMA68 compatible laptop design. And it's
not just this laptop that'll be possible now. It's other classes of
devices like tablets, phones, desktops, and similar.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
The way I see it, the EOMA68 is a i+1 iteration of this. Most certainly a much
better one than most of the ones before, but not a game changer still. Again,
just to be perfectly clear, this is not to undermine the project. All iterations
that are better than the previous ones are leaps forward, and that's the way to
go!
OK- please point me to a single laptop in existence that is as free as
this. The reality is you can't. You can't point me to anything that
comes even close. It's not just an iteration or a small leap forward. A
small leap forward would be if one more component were free'd or
something similar. This enables lots of devices to be manufactured that
are 100% free and it won't cost much. Which is the only way you'd be
able to do it given the limited resources within this community. The
laptop itself isn't even where the leap forward is. It's the EOMA68
standard. If you look at just the laptop even that is a huge leap
forward, but it's only possible because of the EOMA68 standard.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
There have been dozens of computers, some of which come with a
free board design, using platforms that are as good for freedom, 
especially with
Allwinner (but there are lots of others). The linux-sunxi community has 
been
working hard on those for years and years, so this is nothing new or 
specific to
the EOMA68.
Many ARM Chromebooks even go a step further, with a free software 
embedded
controller firmware.
I'm in many cases referring to laptop designs. This isn't totally 
correct though particularly as it relates to laptops. All of the ARM 
Chromebooks have fundamental problems in one way or the other. There
are 
no free software friendly 802.11ac wifi chips and these wifi chips
are 
integrated on every single modern Chromebook that is readily
available 
[last I checked]. You can't easily replace these chips like you can
with 
X86.
This is correct, but is also a detail because it has never really been a
problem. Sticking-in an ath9k_htc dongle solves the issue with nearly zero
associated drawbacks (and we can thank you for that). 
It's a problem now if you want to have a modern laptop and it's a
problem tomorrow if you want a *WORKING* laptop. The older X86 laptops
running LibreBoot have a severely limited time left because of the
materials required to be used by law. As a result they will if they
haven't already started failing. You can't continue down that path. So
you will have one other path maybe and it's utter crap. That would be to
re-purpose chromebooks and these are all dependent on propritary wifi. A
really crappy solution would be to stick in a USB wifi dongle
externally.. but hardly ideal.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
To solve this problem and many others in the process is to gain 
control over the overall design and what you can utilize as your 
building blocks.
Of course, but anyone designing a board can do that. This is what was done with
EOMA68, that extra step was taken. Modularity is only a flexible, practically
convenient way to achieve that, but the problem has never been there.
Not cost effectively to be feasible. The feasible part is the important
bit here. If it was so easy to do before why hasn't anyone done it? It's
because it doesn't work financially.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
With the laptop housing that is part of this crowd 
funding campaign you'll be able to get an Allwinner dual-core A20 on
the 
Libre Tea Computer Card today and upgrade to a quad-core CPU
tomorrow. 
It won't cost $500 either. It'll be under $100.
To contrast, I personally fully support this approach (especially from the
environmental perspective). I'm just saying, it's not a game changer on the
freedom perspective.
The environmental aspect is a side-benefit at best and it's the freedom
perspective that is the real benefit here. I'm sorry you've completely
failed to understand why that is, but we're going to be able to keep
making progress primarily because of EOMA68. We've never even been close
to a completely free laptop before. Only ones which were maybe sort of
almost (but not really) "good enough" to call free.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
(that is LibreBoot doesn't magically make a computer 100% free, there 
are
other problematic components).
Of course, but nobody claimed that it does. It is only a very 
significant piece
in the software freedom puzzle.
It's one of many pieces. It's not quite as significant as people
think. 
If it were gone it wouldn't really make any difference.
Note that by Libreboot, I mean "fully free bootup software" in general,
regardless of the boards that are currently supported. This is what Libreboot is
and targets, and it'll grow to cover as many of the boards it can support as
possible.
So what I meant is that fully free bootup software is a significant piece in the
software freedom puzzle. Perhaps the most crucial one.
Yes- 'fully free bootup software' is a critical key component.
Absolutely. There are many critical components of course and we still
need 802.11ac wifi, graphics, and similar. Though some of these might
sort of be half-solvable in a sense. You can for the moment revert to
802.11n and you can cut corners and achieve free graphics maybe even
too. It's a complicated mess of terrible options all of which need to
fixed yet even if they haven't hit the critical point. I think we will
get there, but these two in particular are *really* significant.
802.11ac is probably still more critical than the graphics only because
we still don't really need 3D. That problem can be solve via software in
simply not utilizing 3D accelerated components. Wifi though is pretty
darn critical and if we can't get 802.11n components manufactured the
world will literally end for the majority of free software users. It's
probably the 2nd most important thing after a free bootloader.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
There are many components for which we are dependent and there are no 
alternative options. Wifi firmwares are a great example. We have only 
one driver and chip for modern 802.11n that we can utilize (AR9271)
and 
nothing for 802.11ac (in any format, PCIE/M.2/USB). It won't be the
case 
that we can get AR9271 adapters manufactured forever and at some
point 
it will become critical that we work on obtaining sources [another 
project we're working on].
I fully agree. Technology moving so fast really doesn't help either. I'm truly
grateful that people like you are working hard to keep up the pace and make sure
free software remains relevant and freedom is still a possibility without living
ten years in the past.
Wifi cards are fundamental to modern computers. You can still get
away 
without 3D acceleration, but good luck with a system that doesn't
have 
internet connectivity.
Agreed, without a doubt.
There are zero good options for graphics right now too. Graphics are
not 
quite critical because we can ship without it for the moment and the 
user experience is still "good enough",
Well, it would be unfair to say that the situation is that bad. Drivers such as
nouveau support cards (with free firmwares in many cases, by the way) that are
not tied to any specific architecture (not only x86 uses PCI) and there are
efforts to support GPUs embedded in ARM SoCs, such as Freedreno and Etnaviv (and
nouveau, too). I think this is all valuable and shows that we're going
somewhere. Maybe not as fast as we'd all like, but the amount of work is huge.
The graphics situation is utter crap unless we can combine the right
components for which we have yet to succeed at doing (or the companies
capable of doing it have not done it and have shown no interest in doing
it yet, but that doesn't mean we're not talking to these companies to
try and get what we want, but it's a long ways to go assuming we're even
successful).

I'd say the situation is only slightly better than I'd come to accept
recently. While we have nouveau it's limited to older NVIDIA graphics
card unless you are willing to accept non-free software on your system
and if you even try newer cards that are suppose to work you'll find
it's not remotely good enough. It's not even working.

And while we might be able to do $10,000 workstations that are
completely free that's not something you can make work in the real
world. People don't have $10,000 or even $3,000, or even $1500 in most
cases to throw at a computer.

The other issue is getting these components that would work combined
into an SOC which can be utilized or similar.

So while the work people are doing is good, it's not that work which I'm
criticizing. It's the situation. It's the limitations, it's the
restrictions, it's the DRM, it's the signature checking, etc.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
LibreBoot is a duplication of effort as far as critical components
are 
concerned and we should try to avoid duplication of efforts given the 
limited resources available.
This sounds particularly wrong to me. You're assuming a specific structure here,
very much company-like, where a group of people get to decide of the directions
for the group and others follow. This is not how our community works. Our
community is best-effort based, so different people (or different companies)
will work on different things as they please.
I'm not telling anybody to work on anything. I'm simply saying if your
objective is to work on critical components your not doing it as far as
I can see via LibreBoot. We're not on the same page and there is nothing
wrong with that, but we're not working with the same objectives in mind,
and if we are it seems the LibreBoot approach is doomed to failure
without someone else solving the hardware issues [ie TALOS]. Even then
I'm not sure LibreBoot is needed if there are already other options.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
I find it quite strange to make claims that suggest we should all follow one
specific direction. People just do what they want to do. This is the mostly
natural things for way to work in our community, and I have no doubt that they
will keep working this way for a long time.
If we are all going different directions to solve the same aim though
there is only one that is going to pan out from where I'm standing and
that I'm aware of. If I thought LibreBoot would solve the problems I'd
have gone that direction. I didn't see that working out in 2009, 2014,
or now. There are other people designing a motherboard for some model
Lenovo laptop. If that had any chance of working I might have gone that
direction. But none of these things are feasible solutions to solve the
goal for the majority of people within our community of producing a
system that maximizes freedom.

There is a severe shortage of individuals with the skills needed to even
begin to solve these problems [ie designing hardware, reverse
engineering, etc] and I'm going to back the people whom have the right
skills and seem to be doing what I think has the highest chance of
success-or will otherwise listen to someone whose got an understanding
of what'll most likely work and adapt. If there is nobody to back [which
is scary and often the case] I'll throw what resources we have at other
projects. For example: A GPS navigation device, freeing graphics chips,
etc. In the past I've thrown resources, time, and energy at resurrecting
free embedded OS firmware projects like LibreCMC (ie LibreWRT) for
routers and freeing wireless firmwares (ath9k-htc), making it easier to
adopt free software via making it easier to obtain free software
friendly hardware, and simply working on the business/financial side of
solving the problems of pulling such projects off.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
We've got the source code for LCD/Keyboard controller firmware,
Regarding LCD: are you talking about a MIPI interface done in software 
with a
MCU? Please feel free to share details about this LCD controller 
firmware, I'd
be very interested to learn more about it, it sounds unusual!
I know a little bit about it, but not enough to give you details. The 
details are readily available though.
Okay, I'd be interested in those details out of curiosity, if you'd like to
point me to them (I can take no for an answer, this is asking you to do some
extra research work, that you can certainly do much more efficiently than me).
You would have to talk to Luke.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
bootloaders, CPU micro code
Huh? Again, please share details about the CPU microcodes. I am not 
aware of any
ARMv7 implementation using a microcode at all, nor of any that was 
liberated.
Overgeneralized. As far as the A20 goes you are correct. I can
confirm 
that there is no micro code in this particular CPU.
That makes sense.
SPL uboot in mainline 2015-10- ddr3 timeings initialization and pll 
clocks.
Yup, the community sure did a great work there. RAM init is always the trickiest
part of bootup and in that case, Allwinner only barely helped (or when they did,
most of it had already been figured out IIRC).
and similar for the EOMA68 laptop housing and Libre Tea Computer Card. 
That's
huge. And there are more significant developments coming including the 
release
of schematics and higher end CPUs.
I fully agree that this is great and I support your project. However, 
keep in
mind that this is nothing new or groundbreaking (not to undermine the 
project
and the efforts associated with it).
I disagree. There is simply nothing you can compare this project to.
We 
are achieving results that can't be demonstrated via any other means.
If 
we could get here some other way at a lower cost with the same long
term 
impact I would have gone that route.
See what Olimex has been doing for years then. They're also coming up with a
laptop design. I agree that you went steps further than most before, but this is
incremental improvement, not something truly new and groundbreaking compared to
what existed before.
Well, think what you want, but we actually did it. There are lots of
other projects which were in the works and have been for years and none
of them have gone anywhere to date. Maybe Olimex or somebody else will
get somewhere. I don't know. If they are succeeding I haven't seen the
evidence of that and success in my mind is more than coming out with a
single laptop/desktop/device. Success in my mind is solving critical
underlying issues like reducing the costs of doing such projects such
that it opens doors for other projects and continued newer models, etc.
And this is what I see as being a success. Not simply coming out with a
one-off board, laptop, or similar. It has to work financially.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
The issue is your looking at one thing. A few specs. It's not the
specs 
that matter. It's the standard, it's the modularization, it's the 
response and cooperation we are getting already as a result of our 
actions here, etc. Intel and AMD are not going to cooperate and
building 
off of other companies products (higher up the chain) is not a
reliable 
long term solution.
Again, I don't see how modularization changes anything here. Hardware
availability has never been the problem. For laptops, we only had minor
annoyances, like Wi-Fi chips that require proprietary firmwares, with
the most
advanced designs for freedom like ARM Chromebooks. So you took a step forward
there. It's not a revolution, it's a step forward: solving the (minor) Wi-Fi
issue. For single-board computers, you didn't bring any specific improvement
over Olimex's Allwinner boards.
These are nothing alike. Do you not understand what EOMA68 is? It's s
standard that reduces the costs and enables us to do things that
wouldn't otherwise be possible.

There is a reason this hasn't been done before. It's not just one laptop
or one desktop. It's a means of producing and continue to produce faster
better devices and different types of devices long term. It enables us
to get code and work with companies that wouldn't even talk to us
before. If you produce a small quantity of something nobody will talk to
you. If you produce a large quantity of something then companies start
talking to you. EOMA68 will reduce the cost and increase the demand for
critical components such that companies will be more willing to talk.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Again, I don't want to sound like your project doesn't matter to me, because it
really does. Only that it's an improved iteration over what exists rather than
whole new ground. And that's totally fine by the way, it is a very sane way to
go. It also shows that you're not the only person on earth caring about these
issues and producing hardware that solves an increasing number of them (even
though I suspect some other players produce devices with such results without
really aiming at that goal).
So overall, thanks for your work :)
You simply don't get it... and it's not worth my time to explain it
further. What really matters is I and others I'm working with keep at it
so we (as in free software community working on hardware-related
problems) keep moving forward in this area. It doesn't matter really if
you do or don't get it. What matters to me is we continue making
progress.

There are certainly lots of other people doing good work. Heck- we've
built off that work. To imply that I'm taking or trying to take credit
for everything is wrong. This was not something that was all my/our own
efforts. We're building off the work of many other people and some of
our own work both now (EOMA68 / laptop / desktop designs / and I think
some of it may be derived from previous work, as well as work by people
doing RE on video components, DDR3 pieces, keyboard/LCD pieces, etc) and
previously (ath9k-htc). There are also successes that are coming and/or
haven't been revealed that'll better demonstrate what's possible and
what this project has enabled already/will enable. But its still mind
blowing to me that you don't get the significance of whats already been
accomplished. To call it just an iteration is so far from reality to be
unbelievable to me.

Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-25 09:59:40 UTC
Permalink
I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. Wake me when you've
actually contributed something of significance and aren't just trying to
undermine those working on solving these problems. For some of us it
isn't about financial gain. We actually want to see 100% free hardware.
I don't need you to take me seriously. I'm merely stating the facts and
drawing logical conclusions. I could be just a new free software user
with no contribution what so ever.

If you believe that what I'm doing is undermining your projects, then
you might be do something wrong in your projects. Like claiming your
proprietary BIOS laptops and desktops are OK in regard to software
freedom as your WiFi adapters. Like claiming EOMA68 board is libre
hardware although no one has access to the PCB CAD files under a
free/libre license. Like not guaranteeing EOMA68 campaign backers that
they will receive the PCB CAD files under a free license along with the
EOMA68 product when shipped. Like claiming EOMA68 board is a
breakthrough in the line of software freedom. Like undermining Libreboot
project and spreading FUD about it (that Libreboot is only for old
x86-based laptops). Like not providing config file to build LibreCMC.
Like LibreCMC not building at all lately. Like corrupting FSF to
recommend your proprietary BIOS laptops and desktops.
André Silva
2016-08-26 01:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Hi guys, i let you know that our url about EOMA68 news has been changed
[0] to fix misleading information there too.

[0]:https://www.parabola.nu/news/new-ryf-seeking-hardware-crowdfunding-project-with-parabola-pre-installed/
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. Wake me when you've
actually contributed something of significance and aren't just trying to
undermine those working on solving these problems. For some of us it
isn't about financial gain. We actually want to see 100% free hardware.
I don't need you to take me seriously. I'm merely stating the facts and
drawing logical conclusions. I could be just a new free software user
with no contribution what so ever.
No. Your selectively quoting with the clear intent to mislead. You are
doing exactly what you propose we're doing. There is a difference
between accidentally misstating something technical and selectively
pulling quotes that make it sound as if I was misleading people.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
If you believe that what I'm doing is undermining your projects, then
you might be do something wrong in your projects. Like claiming your
proprietary BIOS laptops and desktops are OK in regard to software
freedom as your WiFi adapters.
I never made that claim. You are twisting words around as if that is
what I was saying. It was clear from the video and I'd encourage anybody
who believes this to watch it.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Like claiming EOMA68 board is libre
hardware although no one has access to the PCB CAD files under a
free/libre license.
Everything is already available with one exception that was clearly
"The only exception to this rule to release everything in advance is the
PCB CAD files for the Computer Card. We’re planning to release the PCB
CAD files for the Computer card once sufficient units are hit that
ensures any third party manufacturing runs will not undermine the
project’s development or stability."
I also already explained that someone has already attempted to undermine
the project. The decision to withhold this is temporary, and nobody said
it was beholden on the success of the campaign even, and given that we
have already released everything else our intent is clear.
It's also unusual to release this kind of thing if it is released at all
prior to the shipping of the rewards. It's not even wrong to release
nothing until after the crowd funding campaign is done or the rewards
ship. The fact it is being done prior is in spirit with the philosophy
and a mark of good will toward the community.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Like not guaranteeing EOMA68 campaign backers that
they will receive the PCB CAD files under a free license along with the
EOMA68 product when shipped.
It's already abundantly clear that it's going to be released. We're at
$145,300 of $150,000 as of this moment. That is 97% and there is still
25 hours to go. There is zero chance we won't hit that target and
technically we already surpassed the number needed for us to proceed
because the # we estimated could not be 100% determined until we knew
the ratios of rewards. Given that I don't see any reason Luke won't post
the files soon. If he doesn't though it still won't matter from an
ethical stand point because they will be released well before anybody
gets these devices and it will be within the statements/promises made.
Nobody is breaking a promise here.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Like claiming EOMA68 board is a
breakthrough in the line of software freedom. Like undermining Libreboot
project and spreading FUD about it (that Libreboot is only for old
x86-based laptops).
While it supports a newer ARM laptop or two it's not any better
ethically speaking from a freedom stand point than using free versions
of Uboot. These Chromebooks are actually hostile to users freedom and
I'd highly discourage people from going this route. The older X86
LibreBoot laptops don't depend on proprietary firmwares for the wifi
chips. With the older X86 laptops you can replace the internal wifi
cards with free ones. That's not possible on the newer Chromebooks. This
is just one great example of why EOMA68 matters so much.
LibreBoot's value when you talk about freedom is on older X86 laptops.
This is not FUD, just fact. There may be other features that are
desirable and therefore support of EOMA68 devices makes sense. However
it is not an ethics or freedom issue.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Like not providing config file to build LibreCMC.
You are flat out lying. We ship it with every router on CD.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Like LibreCMC not building at all lately.
This is nonsense. There are better directions for building LibreCMC than
just about any other project and we are frequently complimented on how
easy it is to get working. The Software Freedom Conservancy even used
https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech22.html. If there
are issues building LibreCMC it's not something we did explicitly. It
could be any number of problems.
"If an investigator of average skill in embedded firmware construction
can surmise the proper procedures to build and install a replacement
firmware, the instructions are likely sufficient to meet GPL’s
requirements."
Given they were able to build an image independent of us and are not the
only ones it's reasonable to state you are full of it. We even improved
the directions to make them better in the one area that they indicated
improvement could be made (it was still completely GPL compliant despite
this).
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Like corrupting FSF to recommend your proprietary BIOS laptops and
desktops.
Is anybody here buying this? The FSF is a totally independent
organization that we have zero effective influence over. There is
insignificant amounts going to the FSF relative to the donations and
monies coming from other sources. It might not have been a good idea for
them to word this as they did. However I did not have any involvement in
this wording and there is no money being exchanged here.
Here is the disclaimer: 10% of our regular eBay sales go to the FSF.
This amount is donated via proxy and therefore I don't even think the
FSF is aware that said donations are coming from us. I have an associate
member subscription with the FSF. I have purchased a lot of t-shirts
from the FSF over the years. We have sponsored Libre Planet for a number
of years. I was once in a bidding war for a GNU stuffed animal and a GNU
30th cup at the GNU 30th b'day party that resulted in less than $600 USD
going to the FSF. These were less than $50 and you could buy them before
and after the auction. During the holiday one year we did contribute
some amount from each sale to the FSF during the holiday promotion
guide. So did others I believe.
Now we do contribute to the Trisquel project 25% of the profits from any
user purchasing through http://libre.thinkpenguin.com. This is the link
that the FSF uses, many freedom conscious bloggers, Trisquel/FSF
members, and so on. We have also sponsored Ruben's (Trisquel founder)
accommodations or travel in the past when has come to Libre Planet. This
pre-dates Ruben's employment with the FSF.
I think that sums it up. Nothing of significance relative to the million
dollars they have (https://www.fsf.org/about/financial).
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-26 02:19:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by André Silva
Hi guys, i let you know that our url about EOMA68 news has been changed
[0] to fix misleading information there too.
[0]:https://www.parabola.nu/news/new-ryf-seeking-hardware-crowdfunding-project-with-parabola-pre-installed/
That's a good thing. Oh, but you missed something. At the bottom of the
news I read:

"EOMA68 - libre software, libre hardware, and eco-friendly too!"
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2016-06/msg00208.html

IMO, you shouldn't link to that discussion which right from the subject
starts with the "libre hardware" lie.
Christopher Waid
2016-08-26 03:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by André Silva
Hi guys, i let you know that our url about EOMA68 news has been changed
[0] to fix misleading information there too.
[0]:https://www.parabola.nu/news/new-ryf-seeking-hardware-crowdfunding-project-with-parabola-pre-installed/
That's a good thing. Oh, but you missed something. At the bottom of the
"EOMA68 - libre software, libre hardware, and eco-friendly too!"
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2016-06/msg00208.html
IMO, you shouldn't link to that discussion which right from the subject
starts with the "libre hardware" lie.
It's NOT a lie. It's a crowding funding campaign explaining what we are
doing. It hasn't been released yet. It's not technically incorrect to
call it libre just because it hasn't been released yet.
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-26 02:03:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. Wake me when you've
actually contributed something of significance and aren't just trying to
undermine those working on solving these problems. For some of us it
isn't about financial gain. We actually want to see 100% free hardware.
I don't need you to take me seriously. I'm merely stating the facts and
drawing logical conclusions. I could be just a new free software user
with no contribution what so ever.
No. Your selectively quoting with the clear intent to mislead. You are
doing exactly what you propose we're doing. There is a difference
between accidentally misstating something technical and selectively
pulling quotes that make it sound as if I was misleading people.
Freedom is not a technicality, but I've been told this before by people
who do librewashing. Of course you're misleading people. You've been
doing this for several years and you're getting better and better at it.

Also, I'd like to mention that English is not my mother tongue (that is
Romanian) and I don't have the language skills to express my ideas as
well as a native, nor I have or desire to have your manipulation skills
to do brainwashing with gigantic replies. Moreover, I'm not getting paid
for my activism work, so if I'm spending time raising awareness on
freedom issues, I do it sacrificing hours I should be spending to be
able to support myself and in the process serve people hardware
compatible with fully free operating systems.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
If you believe that what I'm doing is undermining your projects, then
you might be do something wrong in your projects. Like claiming your
proprietary BIOS laptops and desktops are OK in regard to software
freedom as your WiFi adapters.
I never made that claim. You are twisting words around as if that is
what I was saying. It was clear from the video and I'd encourage anybody
who believes this to watch it.
I will repeat the arguments and the logic once more. I hate that you're
wasting my time by making me do this over and over again, while instead
you could read again my arguments and logic and see if they make sense.
Okay, here is another attempt to prove that I'm not falsely accusing
you. This time I will break it into small baby steps.

Quoting:

"ThinkPenguin, Inc. is currently the only company with a significant
catalog selling free software friendly hardware. From wifi adapters and
printers to desktops and laptops. For more information on free software
friendly hardware check out the Free Software Foundation's Respect Your
Freedom web site at: fsf.org/ryf."
https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/short-interview-christopher-waid-about-thinkpenguin-linux-action-show

I'm now breaking this paragraph into logical sentences:

S1: ThinkPenguin has a significant catalog of free software friendly
hardware.

S2: ThinkPenguin's catalog of free software friendly hardware is
significant because it ranges from wifi adapters and printers to
desktops and laptops.

S1 & S2 => S3

S3: The free software friendly hardware at ThinkPenguin ranges from wifi
adapters and printers to desktops and laptops.

S4: So far ThinkPenguin has provided you information on the free
software friendly hardware at ThinkPenguin.

S5: For more information on free software friendly hardware, check out
FSF's RYF web site.

S4 & S5 => S6

S6: ThinkPenguin's free software friendly hardware is the same as the
hardware FSF says it respects your freedom.

S3 & S6 => S7

S7: ThinkPenguin's hardware ranging from wifi adapters and printers to
desktops and laptops respect your freedom.

This is basic logic any visitor reading the paragraph would apply and
reach the same conclusion.

(S)he couldn't find ThinkPenguin's laptops listed as certified on the
FSF's RYF page, but couldn't find listed some of ThinkPenguin's wifi
adapters either. Or some other hardware at ThinkPenguin, like printers,
for instance.

(S)he could think that ThinkPenguin has decided not to submit the
laptops for FSF's RYF certification, the way some of the ThinkPenguin's
wifi adapters haven't been submitted for certification, although all
their wifi adapters are respecting user's freedom. Or (s)he could simply
think that ThinkPenguin's laptops are currently under evaluation at FSF.

In any case, (s)he looks for the laptops at ThinkPenguin and find the
two product pages:

https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/korora-penguin-gnu-linux-notebook
https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/penguin-adelie-gnu-linux-laptop

(S)he's now looking at the notes below the product pictures and finds
the list of supported operating systems. After reading a list of several
common distros which ship nonfree software (Linux Mint 18, Ubuntu 16.04,
Slackware 14.2, Fedora 24, openSUSE Tumbleweed, Debian Testing, Arch),
(s)he finds listed free distros like Parabola and Trisquel. (S)he's
happy (s)he can run a fully free operating system on ThinkPenguin's laptop.

(S)he scraps the product pages of the laptops, then takes a closer look
at the specifications, and finds *no* warning these laptops have *big*
freedom issues such as proprietary BIOS. Happily (s)he orders one and
tells everyone (s)he has a ThinkPenguin laptop which respects her/his
freedom. If (s)he's lucky, a free software activist will tell her different.

If someone thinks only that page at ThinkPenguin throws their wifi
adapters and laptops in the same freedom category without warning about
the proprietary BIOS, (s)he's wrong. Their About page does the same
thing. A lot of pages at FSF about ThinkPenguin do the the same thing,
including:

*
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/fsf-members-now-get-5-off-thinkpenguin-free-software-friendly-devices
* https://fsf.org/associate/benefits/
* https://my.fsf.org/

When FSF approached me for including the Tehnoetic S2 preinstalled with
Replicant in the 2015 Giving Guide, I agreed. When I read the text they
prepared which was entirely positive, I asked them to include the
warning that the modem runs a proprietary system. And the Tehnoetic
devices preinstalled with Replicant have product pages filled with
warnings about the freedom issues. I've also integrated in the text
suggestions from PaulK (Replicant developer) and Tehnoetic customers to
make the warnings more clear.

https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v6/
https://tehnoetic.com/mobile-devices

Below are more attempts of ThinkPenguin to brainwash people.

Like stating that they don't need to provide the PCB design sources
before the campaign ends, even though all this time they have falsely
claimed and fooled a lot of people into backing the campaign on the
premise that their project is "libre hardware right from the beginning",
making a lot of people including the Parabola developers (the free
distro they preinstall on their computer) to fall in the trap and
propagate this big lie. Like saying everything about a computer is
"libre hardware", err... with one exception... the *computer* itself!
Err... "every bit of firmware on our laptops is free software, except
for the BIOS which is... outside". "Libre" computer err... except the
computer. Every bit of firmware is free software, err... except the most
important firmware, the BIOS! But that's... "outside".

And other things. Like claiming a publicly available *not* self-hosting
*free* operating system doesn't have to include the config file (the
allegedly modified u-boot *bootloader* wasn't/isn't included either!) in
the sources for users of that *free* operating system to actually be
able to run that free system on a supported router, not necessarily
bought from ThinkPenguin.

Back and forth from LibreCMC project to ThinkPenguin and Software
Freedom Conservancy, I've been asking for the LibreCMC config file for a
target and free u-boot sources, with no success. Only few ThinkPenguin
customers on Trisquel forum have provided that:

https://trisquel.info/en/forum/thinkpenguins-heavily-modified-version-u-boot

Does for instance Replicant, another *not* self-hosted *free* system not
provide config files for targets along with the source code? Or the
bootloader for any new target that can have a free bootloader? It does
provide, because Replicant is a *true* free system, following the FSDG:

https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#complete-distros


And many, many other lies and manipulations. I've spent again too much
of my time to raise awareness on the freedom issues of ThinkPenguin, so
I'll stop now because it's almost morning and no one pays me for my
activism work except my business Tehnoetic.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Like claiming EOMA68 board is libre
hardware although no one has access to the PCB CAD files under a
free/libre license.
Everything is already available with one exception that was clearly
"The only exception to this rule to release everything in advance is the
PCB CAD files for the Computer Card. We’re planning to release the PCB
CAD files for the Computer card once sufficient units are hit that
ensures any third party manufacturing runs will not undermine the
project’s development or stability."
I also already explained that someone has already attempted to undermine
the project. The decision to withhold this is temporary, and nobody said
it was beholden on the success of the campaign even, and given that we
have already released everything else our intent is clear.
It's also unusual to release this kind of thing if it is released at all
prior to the shipping of the rewards. It's not even wrong to release
nothing until after the crowd funding campaign is done or the rewards
ship. The fact it is being done prior is in spirit with the philosophy
and a mark of good will toward the community.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Like not guaranteeing EOMA68 campaign backers that
they will receive the PCB CAD files under a free license along with the
EOMA68 product when shipped.
It's already abundantly clear that it's going to be released. We're at
$145,300 of $150,000 as of this moment. That is 97% and there is still
25 hours to go. There is zero chance we won't hit that target and
technically we already surpassed the number needed for us to proceed
because the # we estimated could not be 100% determined until we knew
the ratios of rewards. Given that I don't see any reason Luke won't post
the files soon. If he doesn't though it still won't matter from an
ethical stand point because they will be released well before anybody
gets these devices and it will be within the statements/promises made.
Nobody is breaking a promise here.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Like claiming EOMA68 board is a
breakthrough in the line of software freedom. Like undermining Libreboot
project and spreading FUD about it (that Libreboot is only for old
x86-based laptops).
While it supports a newer ARM laptop or two it's not any better
ethically speaking from a freedom stand point than using free versions
of Uboot. These Chromebooks are actually hostile to users freedom and
I'd highly discourage people from going this route. The older X86
LibreBoot laptops don't depend on proprietary firmwares for the wifi
chips. With the older X86 laptops you can replace the internal wifi
cards with free ones. That's not possible on the newer Chromebooks. This
is just one great example of why EOMA68 matters so much.
LibreBoot's value when you talk about freedom is on older X86 laptops.
This is not FUD, just fact. There may be other features that are
desirable and therefore support of EOMA68 devices makes sense. However
it is not an ethics or freedom issue.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Like not providing config file to build LibreCMC.
You are flat out lying. We ship it with every router on CD.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Like LibreCMC not building at all lately.
This is nonsense. There are better directions for building LibreCMC than
just about any other project and we are frequently complimented on how
easy it is to get working. The Software Freedom Conservancy even used
https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech22.html. If there
are issues building LibreCMC it's not something we did explicitly. It
could be any number of problems.
"If an investigator of average skill in embedded firmware construction
can surmise the proper procedures to build and install a replacement
firmware, the instructions are likely sufficient to meet GPL’s
requirements."
Given they were able to build an image independent of us and are not the
only ones it's reasonable to state you are full of it. We even improved
the directions to make them better in the one area that they indicated
improvement could be made (it was still completely GPL compliant despite
this).
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Like corrupting FSF to recommend your proprietary BIOS laptops and
desktops.
Is anybody here buying this? The FSF is a totally independent
organization that we have zero effective influence over. There is
insignificant amounts going to the FSF relative to the donations and
monies coming from other sources. It might not have been a good idea for
them to word this as they did. However I did not have any involvement in
this wording and there is no money being exchanged here.
Here is the disclaimer: 10% of our regular eBay sales go to the FSF.
This amount is donated via proxy and therefore I don't even think the
FSF is aware that said donations are coming from us. I have an associate
member subscription with the FSF. I have purchased a lot of t-shirts
from the FSF over the years. We have sponsored Libre Planet for a number
of years. I was once in a bidding war for a GNU stuffed animal and a GNU
30th cup at the GNU 30th b'day party that resulted in less than $600 USD
going to the FSF. These were less than $50 and you could buy them before
and after the auction. During the holiday one year we did contribute
some amount from each sale to the FSF during the holiday promotion
guide. So did others I believe.
Now we do contribute to the Trisquel project 25% of the profits from any
user purchasing through http://libre.thinkpenguin.com. This is the link
that the FSF uses, many freedom conscious bloggers, Trisquel/FSF
members, and so on. We have also sponsored Ruben's (Trisquel founder)
accommodations or travel in the past when has come to Libre Planet. This
pre-dates Ruben's employment with the FSF.
I think that sums it up. Nothing of significance relative to the million
dollars they have (https://www.fsf.org/about/financial).
John Sullivan
2016-08-26 03:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Below are more attempts of ThinkPenguin to brainwash people.
This stops now on this list. ThinkPenguin is not deliberately attempting
to brainwash anyone, and we won't tolerate accusations of bad faith
here.

What this *should* be is a discussion among people on the same side to
refine text and messaging such that it is accurate, approachable, and
effective. Please make it that.

-john
--
John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: A462 6CBA FF37 6039 D2D7 5544 97BA 9CE7 61A0 963B
http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS

Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at
<http://my.fsf.org/join>.
John Sullivan
2016-08-26 03:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Sullivan
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Below are more attempts of ThinkPenguin to brainwash people.
This stops now on this list.
(By "this list", I mean libreplanet-discuss.)

-john
--
John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: A462 6CBA FF37 6039 D2D7 5544 97BA 9CE7 61A0 963B
http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS

Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at
<http://my.fsf.org/join>.
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-26 03:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Sullivan
What this *should* be is a discussion among people on the same side to
refine text and messaging such that it is accurate, approachable, and
effective. Please make it that.
I believe your or other FSF staff member's comments on the points raised
here could help this discussion reach some conclusions.
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-08-26 09:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Below are more attempts of ThinkPenguin to brainwash people.
This stops now on this list. ThinkPenguin is not deliberately attempting
to brainwash anyone, and we won't tolerate accusations of bad faith
here.
What this *should* be is a discussion among people on the same side to
refine text and messaging such that it is accurate, approachable, and
effective. Please make it that.
Thank-you for intervening here. This is what I meant this discussion to be in
the first place, not a targeted attack at Christopher, Luke, Thinkpenguin or
Rhombus Tech. I'm really sad it has turned this way and condemn those
accusations as well.
--
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-26 11:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Below are more attempts of ThinkPenguin to brainwash people.
This stops now on this list. ThinkPenguin is not deliberately attempting
to brainwash anyone, and we won't tolerate accusations of bad faith
here.
John, have you read in detail the discussion and followed the links?
Anyone is free to find counter-arguments to the arguments/proof I have
provided. And it's time someone else than Christopher Waid does that on
the libreplanet-discuss mailing list.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
What this *should* be is a discussion among people on the same side to
refine text and messaging such that it is accurate, approachable, and
effective. Please make it that.
Thank-you for intervening here. This is what I meant this discussion to be in
the first place, not a targeted attack at Christopher, Luke, Thinkpenguin or
Rhombus Tech. I'm really sad it has turned this way and condemn those
accusations as well.
These accusations are my conclusions based on my several-year experience
as business competitor of ThinkPenguin and believe me I learned the hard
way he's doing it deliberately, me more than anyone else (except maybe
Minifree).

Essentially, the "EOMA68 as libre hardware" debate comes down to these
three simple questions:

Question #1:

What does "right from the beginning" mean in this paragraph:

"This project has been extremely unusual in that it has been a Libre
Hardware and Software project right from the beginning. Many projects
claim a degree of “open-ness”, using the word “open” in order to attract
users and developers, but a simple in-depth investigation of such
projects quickly reveals the claim of “open-ness” to be misleading or
outright false." -- https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop

Shouldn't that be corrected if the PCB design sources are not free at
this moment? It takes only 1 minute to correct it (for instance, state
that the computer will probably become "libre hardware" at some point).

Question #2:

If claiming this EOMA68 computer is "libre hardware" in the Parabola
news has been consensually considered in the Parabola community as being
misleading, how come it's not misleading to have the same statement in
the campaign's text even reinforced with "right from the beginning" and
how come it's not deliberately misleading to have such a statement since
the EOMA68 project leaders have refused to admit it's misleading and to
correct it.

Question #3:

If the EOMA68 campaign's text haven't mislead people, how come so many
people have thought that the computer is "libre hardware" and promoted
it as such, similarly to Parabola project in their news?

I'm copying again the not-complete list of such news/articles
perpetuating the same "EOMA68 as libre hardware" claim Parabola project
admitted it was misleading:

Hackerboards article, quoted in the campaign's page:

"The EOMA68-A20 COM and systems are claimed to be scrupulously “libre”
in both hardware and software"
http://hackerboards.com/open-source-com-and-carriers-become-3d-printable-computers/

Liliputing article, quoted in the campaign's page:

"Part of what makes the EOMA68 unusual is that all of the software,
hardware schematics, and even CAD files for the case design are all
available for free."
http://liliputing.com/2016/06/crowdfunding-begins-modular-eoma68-pc-system-laptop-desktop-upgradeable-pc-card.html

Retro-Freedom article, quoted in the campaign's page:

"we need computers that [...] Are based on libre hardware designs. [...]
Why the EOMA68 solves our problems"
http://retro-freedom.nz/blog/2016/06/30/eoma68-my-dream-machine/

Xataka article, quoted in the campaign's page:

"Parte de la gracia que tiene el sistema está en la en que todo lo que
lo rodea es libre y gratuito. Me explico, tanto el software, como los
esquemas de hardware, además de los ficheros CAD, son de libre acceso"
http://www.xataka.com/makers/el-cerebro-de-todos-tus-gadgets-puede-caber-en-una-cartera-eoma68

And other articles quoted in the campaign's page reiterate the same claim.

Additionally, the discussions have been reiterating the same claim:

"Open Source" Hardware Association's mailing list:

http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/2016-August/001865.html

"Open" Manufacturing Group's mailing list:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/5Wi1poeK4B4/02CC4uLMAAAJ
(https://groups.google.com/forum/#!aboutgroup/openmanufacturing)

Free Software Foundation community mailing list LibrePlanet-discuss:

Thread #1: EOMA68 - We have to get Free Hardware!

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2016-07/msg00023.html

Thread #2: EOMA68 - libre software, libre hardware, and eco-

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2016-07/msg00002.html

And the list can go on.
Josh Branning
2016-08-26 16:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic

Maybe they /do/ intend to release the CAD files when they say they will.
In which case, has it occurred to you that the kind of things you are
saying:

A) May look a bit silly once (and if) they're released.
and
B) Are in-fact not constructive. People may not want to create this kind
of hardware in future and will read this conversation and think "I need
to be extremely careful about the things I can and can't say when
dealing with those libre peeps", and it will put them off.

That said, I am glad the news article has been amended, because at the
moment, you are right: The CAD files haven't been released, and the
project does, perhaps wrongly, hint that it's libre hardware from right
from the start.

But really, it wouldn't bother me a bit, if they did in-fact release the
CAD files afterwards.

As it is, I didn't back their crowd funding, because I'd rather wait
till they are actually released before even thinking of buying anything.

I know of other similar projects (won't mention them here) that have
already released their CAD files, and seem to be doing very well despite
this fact.

In time, of course, we will be able to see if EOMA68 was telling the
truth, or just librewashing. But at the moment, I wouldn't want to put
money on it either way.
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-26 19:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Maybe they /do/ intend to release the CAD files when they say they will.
In which case, has it occurred to you that the kind of things you are
A) May look a bit silly once (and if) they're released.
They haven't provided a deadline for the release or such a guarantee for
their backers for when they start shipping the hardware. It's not silly
to put pressure on people to offer deadlines and guarantees when they
make such statements about hardware freedom. It's activism. Even if some
people might see your actions as silly.
B) Are in-fact not constructive. People may not want to create this kind
of hardware in future and will read this conversation and think "I need
to be extremely careful about the things I can and can't say when
dealing with those libre peeps", and it will put them off.
If they want to make free-design hardware, then it means:

1) they make it out of conviction (believing in hardware freedom), or
2) they make it for the money (having discovered a niche)
3) they make it for both reasons above

Regardless of their reasons, they won't stop because hardware freedom
activists (or "libre peeps" as some of them might think we are) have
criticized in the past other projects with false claims. If anything,
they will learn it's not good tactics to make false claims.
That said, I am glad the news article has been amended, because at the
moment, you are right: The CAD files haven't been released, and the
project does, perhaps wrongly, hint that it's libre hardware from right
from the start.
Of course.
But really, it wouldn't bother me a bit, if they did in-fact release the
CAD files afterwards.
That would be a sad thing for the society and detrimental thing for
their project.
As it is, I didn't back their crowd funding, because I'd rather wait
till they are actually released before even thinking of buying anything.
Me too.
I know of other similar projects (won't mention them here)
Why not.
that have
already released their CAD files, and seem to be doing very well despite
this fact.
That's good, we can use success stories.
In time, of course, we will be able to see if EOMA68 was telling the
truth, or just librewashing. But at the moment, I wouldn't want to put
money on it either way.
I wish they would agree to announce a deadline for the release and send
their backers a guarantee that they will ship all the hardware sources
along with the hardware.
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-26 16:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Thank you, Ali. I really appreciate you taking the time to answer my
call and share your opinion on the libreplanet-discuss mailing list.
If this is true in the libre hardware world,
I follow your logic, but I'm not sure there is an exact analogy libre
software <-> libre hardware.
then at the moment, EOMA68 is libre hardware right from the beginning.
I can identify several times used in this sentence and the one below: T1
is the inception (beginning) of the project. T2 is the present day
(now). T3 is the earliest shipping time of the hardware to the backers.

It is my understanding that the sequence is T1 < T2 < T3 and not T2 < T3
= T1.
If they release the hardware to their backers like myself, but do not provide the PCB design sources, *then* we can say they are not libre hardware.
If at T3 the hardware ships with free PCB design sources, then at T3
we'll have proof and thus be able to say EOMA68 *is* libre hardware (by
today's standards = at board level, not necessarily at chip level).

At T2 based on the proof that the laptop case CAD files have been made
available under GPLv3+ at some point in the interval [T1, T2) we are
only able to say EOMA68 has the laptop case as libre hardware, but we
can't say EOMA68 is libre hardware, because at T2 we don't have proof
that the EOMA68 computer itself (EOMA68-A20) is libre hardware (at board
level).

But, if at T2 we have the EOMA68 project's guarantee (I don't think we
have that guarantee stated, at least not on the campaign's page) that at
T3 EOMA68 computer will ship to the backers with free PCB design
sources, then at T2 the *EOMA68 project* can say that at T3 the EOMA68
will be libre hardware (they have the power to do know that, because
they have designed the board and it's their decision if and when to
release the design sources). And at T2 *we* can say (like PaulK said)
that the EOMA68 "may be" libre hardware in the future or, based on the
track record of the project leaders with the laptop case CAD files under
GPLv3+, that it's *probably* going/*likely* to be libre hardware at T3.

From T1 to T2 and continuing until T3, neither the EOMA68 project can
say their hardware *is* libre hardware, nor we can say it *is* libre
hardware. Instead, they can say that only the laptop case *is* libre
hardware.

Now, let's assume that the EOMA68 project has a change of heart and
decides to release the free PCB design sources at least to its
campaign's backers at T2, and not wait until T3. Then at T2/now we are
able to say that the EOMA68 hardware *is* libre hardware.

But I fail to see how sending the free PCB design sources to the backers
at T2 and not wait until T3 will modify/reflect in the statement quoted
many times here that "[EOMA68 hardware] is libre hardware right from the
beginning".

Also, I don't see any reason why this statement refers to T1, since at
T2 (and T2 > T1) we don't have any proof that EOMA68 hardware is libre
hardware. If at T2 not even the backers don't have the free PCB design
sources, I wouldn't consider true to even state that "[EOMA68 hardware]
is libre hardware *now*", yet alone essentially stating that "[EOMA68
hardware] is libre hardware since T1".

I hope this makes sense for everyone.
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-26 16:32:08 UTC
Permalink
I follow your argument but to make sure we’re on the same page, let me try to rephrase it in my own words so that you can agree or disagree. I believe you claim that we cannot say that the EOMA68 is “libre hardware from the beginning” because we have no proof that it has indeed been libre hardware since the very beginning of the EOMA68 project (which would be T1, in your email). Perhaps we can claim that “EOMA68 is libre hardware from the time the hardware is shipped to its backers” when they eventually release their PCB designs, or maybe we can claim “EOMA68 is libre hardware today” (which would be T2) if they released the PCB today. But even if they did release it today, we cannot claim that “EOMA68 is libre hardware from the beginning”.
Have I understood you correctly?
I think so.
pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
2016-08-26 17:02:04 UTC
Permalink
It seems the problem is the meaning of “libre” in terms of unreleased
hardware/software. EOMA68 certainly is aligned with libre culture and
significant for freedom because of its modularity standard. It also is
GPL-compliant like any unreleased product, but this does not mean much.
I believe the claim that it is “free from the very beginning” is
imprecise but not deceptive and *not a problem* if all available sources
will eventually be released.

A clear promise to release what is missing would seem fair though.

Regards,
Florian Pelz
pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
2016-08-26 18:48:15 UTC
Permalink
(I forgot to reply to all lists… Sorry.)

It seems the problem is the meaning of “libre” in terms of unreleased
hardware/software. EOMA68 certainly is aligned with libre culture and
significant for freedom because of its modularity standard. It also is
GPL-compliant like any unreleased product, but this does not mean much.
I believe the claim that it is “free from the very beginning” is
imprecise but not deceptive and *not a problem* if all available sources
will eventually be released.

A clear promise to release what is missing would seem fair though.

Regards,
Florian Pelz
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-26 19:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
It seems the problem is the meaning of “libre” in terms of unreleased
hardware/software. EOMA68 certainly is aligned with libre culture and
significant for freedom because of its modularity standard. It also is
GPL-compliant like any unreleased product, but this does not mean much.
You're mixing so many concepts here.
Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
I believe the claim that it is “free from the very beginning” is
imprecise but not deceptive
I disagree, since that claim has made people believe it's already libre
hardware (as news articles prove). Which is not. The exception is
actually the computer itself.
Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
and *not a problem* if all available sources
will eventually be released.
Well, if it's not true that said hardware is libre hardware now (or
since "the very beginning" until now) and we consider it "not a problem"
if at some unspecified point in time it's going to be libre hardware,
than we are justifying the practice of falsely marketing hardware as
free-design hardware. And the same logic ("not a problem") can apply to
GPL-violaters who at some point in time they comply with GPL.
Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
A clear promise to release what is missing would seem fair though.
A clear deadline for the release is what's needed. Previously I have
compiled a list of demands for this crowdfunded project backed by the users:

https://trisquel.info/en/forum/re-dev-misleading-information-eoma68-news#comment-101927

Copying them here:

Here is what I think backers should do:

1. Demand a clear deadline for the release of the circuit design sources
under a free license.

2. Demand to stop promoting their Computer as "libre hardware" until
they release the circuit design sources under a free license.

3. Demand the Computer is shipped to them along with the circuit design
sources under a free license, even though the shipping is done before
the official deadline.

4. Demand the above conditions are met for further backing the
crowdfunding campaign.
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-26 20:07:23 UTC
Permalink
I have to disagree here. Comparing this to GPL violation is outrageous.
You might be right and the parallelism I made is too extrapolated.
Thanks for noting that.

Tiberiu
Ali Razeen
2016-08-26 19:43:23 UTC
Permalink
Hi all,

I’m not even sure that it’s imprecise to say that it is “free from the very beginning.” However, since my reasoning may be wrong, let me write it below and you folk can point out my mistakes.

To quote Christopher: “Everybody who has the devices has the schematics and rights thereof.” Suppose that the *only* ones who have the hardware are people within the EOMA68 and ThinkPenguin groups, and suppose that they have the designs and source code. That is enough to say that it has been a libre hardware from the beginning (which is T1 from Tiberiu-Cezar’s email). Sure, it might not be useful to anyone else since it wasn’t released to anyone but it’s still libre to the people with the devices and they can release it should they wish to.

There are two ways I can think of to defeat this argument.

1) We can ask a person who has the hardware whether they have the rights to distribute it and the rights to ask for the PCB designs. If the answer to both is “no”, then it is not “libre from the very beginning.” But if the answer to both is “yes”, then the project is indeed “libre from the very beginning."

2) As per Tiberiu-Cezar’s email, we can object to this on the grounds that we do not have proof of their claim. I don’t have a clear reply to this except to ask what kind of proof can we reasonably expect? Christopher has already said that “Everybody who has the devices has the schematics and the rights thereof.”. I, personally, don’t have any reason to not trust that statement. But let’s say I don’t trust Christopher and that I still lack proof of the claim. Would that be grounds for me to claim that the statement “libre from the very beginning” to be misleading. Some stronger words were used but I will not repeat them here. Perhaps the most we can say is that the claim “libre from the very beginning” is unverifiable. Such a claim is far less problematic.

What do you think Tiberiu-Cezar? (By the way, how should I address you? Tiberiu, Tiberiu-Cezar, or something else? I’m sorry for my cultural ignorance!)

Best,
Ali
Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
(I forgot to reply to all lists… Sorry.)
It seems the problem is the meaning of “libre” in terms of unreleased
hardware/software. EOMA68 certainly is aligned with libre culture and
significant for freedom because of its modularity standard. It also is
GPL-compliant like any unreleased product, but this does not mean much.
I believe the claim that it is “free from the very beginning” is
imprecise but not deceptive and *not a problem* if all available sources
will eventually be released.
A clear promise to release what is missing would seem fair though.
Regards,
Florian Pelz
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-26 20:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Ali, thanks for your arguments. Schematics don't make a hardware
free-design hardware, as PaulK has stated and as Richard's essay
explains. It's the PCB design sources. Schematics are usually PDF files.

I doubt any of the people who now hold the EOMA68-A20 computer boards
would disobey the project's leader(s) and share the PCB design sources,
if they have them at all. And definitely they are not legally allowed to
share them under a free license such as GPLv3+.
Post by Ali Razeen
Hi all,
I’m not even sure that it’s imprecise to say that it is “free from the very beginning.” However, since my reasoning may be wrong, let me write it below and you folk can point out my mistakes.
To quote Christopher: “Everybody who has the devices has the schematics and rights thereof.” Suppose that the *only* ones who have the hardware are people within the EOMA68 and ThinkPenguin groups, and suppose that they have the designs and source code. That is enough to say that it has been a libre hardware from the beginning (which is T1 from Tiberiu-Cezar’s email). Sure, it might not be useful to anyone else since it wasn’t released to anyone but it’s still libre to the people with the devices and they can release it should they wish to.
There are two ways I can think of to defeat this argument.
1) We can ask a person who has the hardware whether they have the rights to distribute it and the rights to ask for the PCB designs. If the answer to both is “no”, then it is not “libre from the very beginning.” But if the answer to both is “yes”, then the project is indeed “libre from the very beginning."
2) As per Tiberiu-Cezar’s email, we can object to this on the grounds that we do not have proof of their claim. I don’t have a clear reply to this except to ask what kind of proof can we reasonably expect? Christopher has already said that “Everybody who has the devices has the schematics and the rights thereof.”. I, personally, don’t have any reason to not trust that statement. But let’s say I don’t trust Christopher and that I still lack proof of the claim. Would that be grounds for me to claim that the statement “libre from the very beginning” to be misleading. Some stronger words were used but I will not repeat them here. Perhaps the most we can say is that the claim “libre from the very beginning” is unverifiable. Such a claim is far less problematic.
What do you think Tiberiu-Cezar? (By the way, how should I address you? Tiberiu, Tiberiu-Cezar, or something else? I’m sorry for my cultural ignorance!)
Best,
Ali
Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
(I forgot to reply to all lists… Sorry.)
It seems the problem is the meaning of “libre” in terms of unreleased
hardware/software. EOMA68 certainly is aligned with libre culture and
significant for freedom because of its modularity standard. It also is
GPL-compliant like any unreleased product, but this does not mean much.
I believe the claim that it is “free from the very beginning” is
imprecise but not deceptive and *not a problem* if all available sources
will eventually be released.
A clear promise to release what is missing would seem fair though.
Regards,
Florian Pelz
Adonay Felipe Nogueira
2016-08-26 13:44:43 UTC
Permalink
My first attempt was to discuss and suggest better wordings for both
older and upcoming publications. I didn't intend to make accusations and
such.

This is why I sent several messages here suggesting both "parties" of
the discussion to simply analise the issue and, if needed, correct not
only the future publications, but also the older ones.
Christopher Waid
2016-08-26 03:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. Wake me when you've
actually contributed something of significance and aren't just trying to
undermine those working on solving these problems. For some of us it
isn't about financial gain. We actually want to see 100% free hardware.
I don't need you to take me seriously. I'm merely stating the facts and
drawing logical conclusions. I could be just a new free software user
with no contribution what so ever.
No. Your selectively quoting with the clear intent to mislead. You are
doing exactly what you propose we're doing. There is a difference
between accidentally misstating something technical and selectively
pulling quotes that make it sound as if I was misleading people.
Freedom is not a technicality, but I've been told this before by people
who do librewashing. Of course you're misleading people. You've been
doing this for several years and you're getting better and better at it.
Also, I'd like to mention that English is not my mother tongue (that is
Romanian) and I don't have the language skills to express my ideas as
well as a native, nor I have or desire to have your manipulation skills
to do brainwashing with gigantic replies. Moreover, I'm not getting paid
for my activism work, so if I'm spending time raising awareness on
freedom issues, I do it sacrificing hours I should be spending to be
able to support myself and in the process serve people hardware
compatible with fully free operating systems.
I never said freedom was a technicality. You're intentionally
misunderstanding what I'm saying. Your understanding of English isn't
that bad.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
If you believe that what I'm doing is undermining your projects, then
you might be do something wrong in your projects. Like claiming your
proprietary BIOS laptops and desktops are OK in regard to software
freedom as your WiFi adapters.
I never made that claim. You are twisting words around as if that is
what I was saying. It was clear from the video and I'd encourage anybody
who believes this to watch it.
I will repeat the arguments and the logic once more. I hate that you're
wasting my time by making me do this over and over again, while instead
you could read again my arguments and logic and see if they make sense.
Okay, here is another attempt to prove that I'm not falsely accusing
you. This time I will break it into small baby steps.
You are quoting ancient text that was pulled from our about page I think
from a very very long time ago. The actual about page hasn't included
this for years. Yes- it was imperfect and has LONG ago been
fixed/improved upon.

Get lost.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
"ThinkPenguin, Inc. is currently the only company with a significant
catalog selling free software friendly hardware. From wifi adapters and
printers to desktops and laptops. For more information on free software
friendly hardware check out the Free Software Foundation's Respect Your
Freedom web site at: fsf.org/ryf."
https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/short-interview-christopher-waid-about-thinkpenguin-linux-action-show
S1: ThinkPenguin has a significant catalog of free software friendly
hardware.
S2: ThinkPenguin's catalog of free software friendly hardware is
significant because it ranges from wifi adapters and printers to
desktops and laptops.
S1 & S2 => S3
S3: The free software friendly hardware at ThinkPenguin ranges from wifi
adapters and printers to desktops and laptops.
S4: So far ThinkPenguin has provided you information on the free
software friendly hardware at ThinkPenguin.
S5: For more information on free software friendly hardware, check out
FSF's RYF web site.
S4 & S5 => S6
S6: ThinkPenguin's free software friendly hardware is the same as the
hardware FSF says it respects your freedom.
S3 & S6 => S7
S7: ThinkPenguin's hardware ranging from wifi adapters and printers to
desktops and laptops respect your freedom.
This is basic logic any visitor reading the paragraph would apply and
reach the same conclusion.
(S)he couldn't find ThinkPenguin's laptops listed as certified on the
FSF's RYF page, but couldn't find listed some of ThinkPenguin's wifi
adapters either. Or some other hardware at ThinkPenguin, like printers,
for instance.
(S)he could think that ThinkPenguin has decided not to submit the
laptops for FSF's RYF certification, the way some of the ThinkPenguin's
wifi adapters haven't been submitted for certification, although all
their wifi adapters are respecting user's freedom. Or (s)he could simply
think that ThinkPenguin's laptops are currently under evaluation at FSF.
In any case, (s)he looks for the laptops at ThinkPenguin and find the
https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/korora-penguin-gnu-linux-notebook
https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/penguin-adelie-gnu-linux-laptop
(S)he's now looking at the notes below the product pictures and finds
the list of supported operating systems. After reading a list of several
common distros which ship nonfree software (Linux Mint 18, Ubuntu 16.04,
Slackware 14.2, Fedora 24, openSUSE Tumbleweed, Debian Testing, Arch),
(s)he finds listed free distros like Parabola and Trisquel. (S)he's
happy (s)he can run a fully free operating system on ThinkPenguin's laptop.
(S)he scraps the product pages of the laptops, then takes a closer look
at the specifications, and finds *no* warning these laptops have *big*
freedom issues such as proprietary BIOS. Happily (s)he orders one and
tells everyone (s)he has a ThinkPenguin laptop which respects her/his
freedom. If (s)he's lucky, a free software activist will tell her different.
If someone thinks only that page at ThinkPenguin throws their wifi
adapters and laptops in the same freedom category without warning about
the proprietary BIOS, (s)he's wrong. Their About page does the same
thing. A lot of pages at FSF about ThinkPenguin do the the same thing,
*
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/fsf-members-now-get-5-off-thinkpenguin-free-software-friendly-devices
* https://fsf.org/associate/benefits/
* https://my.fsf.org/
When FSF approached me for including the Tehnoetic S2 preinstalled with
Replicant in the 2015 Giving Guide, I agreed. When I read the text they
prepared which was entirely positive, I asked them to include the
warning that the modem runs a proprietary system. And the Tehnoetic
devices preinstalled with Replicant have product pages filled with
warnings about the freedom issues. I've also integrated in the text
suggestions from PaulK (Replicant developer) and Tehnoetic customers to
make the warnings more clear.
https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v6/
https://tehnoetic.com/mobile-devices
Below are more attempts of ThinkPenguin to brainwash people.
Like stating that they don't need to provide the PCB design sources
before the campaign ends, even though all this time they have falsely
claimed and fooled a lot of people into backing the campaign on the
premise that their project is "libre hardware right from the
beginning",
making a lot of people including the Parabola developers (the free
distro they preinstall on their computer) to fall in the trap and
propagate this big lie. Like saying everything about a computer is
"libre hardware", err... with one exception... the *computer* itself!
Err... "every bit of firmware on our laptops is free software, except
for the BIOS which is... outside". "Libre" computer err... except the
computer. Every bit of firmware is free software, err... except the most
important firmware, the BIOS! But that's... "outside".
And other things. Like claiming a publicly available *not* self-hosting
*free* operating system doesn't have to include the config file (the
allegedly modified u-boot *bootloader* wasn't/isn't included either!) in
the sources for users of that *free* operating system to actually be
able to run that free system on a supported router, not necessarily
bought from ThinkPenguin.
Back and forth from LibreCMC project to ThinkPenguin and Software
Freedom Conservancy, I've been asking for the LibreCMC config file for a
target and free u-boot sources, with no success. Only few ThinkPenguin
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/thinkpenguins-heavily-modified-version-u-boot
Does for instance Replicant, another *not* self-hosted *free* system not
provide config files for targets along with the source code? Or the
bootloader for any new target that can have a free bootloader? It does
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#complete-distros
And many, many other lies and manipulations. I've spent again too much
of my time to raise awareness on the freedom issues of ThinkPenguin, so
I'll stop now because it's almost morning and no one pays me for my
activism work except my business Tehnoetic.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Like claiming EOMA68 board is libre
hardware although no one has access to the PCB CAD files under a
free/libre license.
Everything is already available with one exception that was clearly
"The only exception to this rule to release everything in advance is the
PCB CAD files for the Computer Card. We’re planning to release the PCB
CAD files for the Computer card once sufficient units are hit that
ensures any third party manufacturing runs will not undermine the
project’s development or stability."
I also already explained that someone has already attempted to undermine
the project. The decision to withhold this is temporary, and nobody said
it was beholden on the success of the campaign even, and given that we
have already released everything else our intent is clear.
It's also unusual to release this kind of thing if it is released at all
prior to the shipping of the rewards. It's not even wrong to release
nothing until after the crowd funding campaign is done or the rewards
ship. The fact it is being done prior is in spirit with the philosophy
and a mark of good will toward the community.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Like not guaranteeing EOMA68 campaign backers that
they will receive the PCB CAD files under a free license along with the
EOMA68 product when shipped.
It's already abundantly clear that it's going to be released. We're at
$145,300 of $150,000 as of this moment. That is 97% and there is still
25 hours to go. There is zero chance we won't hit that target and
technically we already surpassed the number needed for us to proceed
because the # we estimated could not be 100% determined until we knew
the ratios of rewards. Given that I don't see any reason Luke won't post
the files soon. If he doesn't though it still won't matter from an
ethical stand point because they will be released well before anybody
gets these devices and it will be within the statements/promises made.
Nobody is breaking a promise here.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Like claiming EOMA68 board is a
breakthrough in the line of software freedom. Like undermining Libreboot
project and spreading FUD about it (that Libreboot is only for old
x86-based laptops).
While it supports a newer ARM laptop or two it's not any better
ethically speaking from a freedom stand point than using free versions
of Uboot. These Chromebooks are actually hostile to users freedom and
I'd highly discourage people from going this route. The older X86
LibreBoot laptops don't depend on proprietary firmwares for the wifi
chips. With the older X86 laptops you can replace the internal wifi
cards with free ones. That's not possible on the newer Chromebooks. This
is just one great example of why EOMA68 matters so much.
LibreBoot's value when you talk about freedom is on older X86 laptops.
This is not FUD, just fact. There may be other features that are
desirable and therefore support of EOMA68 devices makes sense. However
it is not an ethics or freedom issue.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Like not providing config file to build LibreCMC.
You are flat out lying. We ship it with every router on CD.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Like LibreCMC not building at all lately.
This is nonsense. There are better directions for building LibreCMC than
just about any other project and we are frequently complimented on how
easy it is to get working. The Software Freedom Conservancy even used
https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech22.html. If there
are issues building LibreCMC it's not something we did explicitly. It
could be any number of problems.
"If an investigator of average skill in embedded firmware construction
can surmise the proper procedures to build and install a replacement
firmware, the instructions are likely sufficient to meet GPL’s
requirements."
Given they were able to build an image independent of us and are not the
only ones it's reasonable to state you are full of it. We even improved
the directions to make them better in the one area that they indicated
improvement could be made (it was still completely GPL compliant despite
this).
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Like corrupting FSF to recommend your proprietary BIOS laptops and
desktops.
Is anybody here buying this? The FSF is a totally independent
organization that we have zero effective influence over. There is
insignificant amounts going to the FSF relative to the donations and
monies coming from other sources. It might not have been a good idea for
them to word this as they did. However I did not have any involvement in
this wording and there is no money being exchanged here.
Here is the disclaimer: 10% of our regular eBay sales go to the FSF.
This amount is donated via proxy and therefore I don't even think the
FSF is aware that said donations are coming from us. I have an associate
member subscription with the FSF. I have purchased a lot of t-shirts
from the FSF over the years. We have sponsored Libre Planet for a number
of years. I was once in a bidding war for a GNU stuffed animal and a GNU
30th cup at the GNU 30th b'day party that resulted in less than $600 USD
going to the FSF. These were less than $50 and you could buy them before
and after the auction. During the holiday one year we did contribute
some amount from each sale to the FSF during the holiday promotion
guide. So did others I believe.
Now we do contribute to the Trisquel project 25% of the profits from any
user purchasing through http://libre.thinkpenguin.com. This is the link
that the FSF uses, many freedom conscious bloggers, Trisquel/FSF
members, and so on. We have also sponsored Ruben's (Trisquel founder)
accommodations or travel in the past when has come to Libre Planet. This
pre-dates Ruben's employment with the FSF.
I think that sums it up. Nothing of significance relative to the million
dollars they have (https://www.fsf.org/about/financial).
Daniel Pimentel
2016-08-26 00:15:45 UTC
Permalink
I bought my Libre Tea.

I wait for Laptop House with 11' screen :)

Help guys this great project!

Thanks,
--
Daniel Pimentel (aka d4n1)
Adonay Felipe Nogueira
2016-08-25 12:25:34 UTC
Permalink
This issue of "you said it is 'libre' but I prove it's not", and even
the issue regarding the older publication on ThinkPenguin's site, can be
easily solved by changing terms/words accordingly there. There's no need
to make everyone mad at each other.

For example, we can publish updates on these publications, that have the
purpose of replacing confusing terms like "free software friendly" with
"compatible with free/libre system distributions" (or the similar term
that RMS suggested).

Remember, the issue about usage of confusing words have two ways to be
dealt with:

* We can discuss and try to convince each other on why our position is
the right one (whichever side it is).

* Or we can simply fix the text for now.

* Or we can do both described above.
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-25 12:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adonay Felipe Nogueira
This issue of "you said it is 'libre' but I prove it's not", and even
the issue regarding the older publication on ThinkPenguin's site, can be
easily solved by changing terms/words accordingly there. There's no need
to make everyone mad at each other.
It's not just about terminology. It's about deliberately misinforming
the people to back your project because it's been libre hardware and
libre software "right from the beginning". And also misinforming people
to think it's OK for their freedom to buy laptops with proprietary BIOS
rather than with Libreboot.
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-25 22:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Adonay Felipe Nogueira
This issue of "you said it is 'libre' but I prove it's not", and even
the issue regarding the older publication on ThinkPenguin's site, can be
easily solved by changing terms/words accordingly there. There's no need
to make everyone mad at each other.
It's not just about terminology. It's about deliberately misinforming
the people to back your project because it's been libre hardware and
libre software "right from the beginning". And also misinforming people
to think it's OK for their freedom to buy laptops with proprietary BIOS
rather than with Libreboot.
Richard Stallman has just confirmed me that FSF has not received the PCB
design sources along with the Libre Tea Computer Card.

I hope that now everyone understands that this EOMA68 board is *not*
libre hardware as claimed.

Tiberiu
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-08-25 22:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Adonay Felipe Nogueira
This issue of "you said it is 'libre' but I prove it's not", and even
the issue regarding the older publication on ThinkPenguin's site, can be
easily solved by changing terms/words accordingly there. There's no need
to make everyone mad at each other.
It's not just about terminology. It's about deliberately misinforming
the people to back your project because it's been libre hardware and
libre software "right from the beginning". And also misinforming people
to think it's OK for their freedom to buy laptops with proprietary BIOS
rather than with Libreboot.
Richard Stallman has just confirmed me that FSF has not received the PCB
design sources along with the Libre Tea Computer Card.
I hope that now everyone understands that this EOMA68 board is *not*
libre hardware as claimed.
LKCL made it clear already: the EOMA68 circuit board design is not libre
hardware for now, but may be liberated in the future.

Where (except for the Parabola news we just fixed) did you see anyone claim that
it's libre hardware?
--
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-25 23:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Adonay Felipe Nogueira
This issue of "you said it is 'libre' but I prove it's not", and even
the issue regarding the older publication on ThinkPenguin's site, can be
easily solved by changing terms/words accordingly there. There's no need
to make everyone mad at each other.
It's not just about terminology. It's about deliberately misinforming
the people to back your project because it's been libre hardware and
libre software "right from the beginning". And also misinforming people
to think it's OK for their freedom to buy laptops with proprietary BIOS
rather than with Libreboot.
Richard Stallman has just confirmed me that FSF has not received the PCB
design sources along with the Libre Tea Computer Card.
I hope that now everyone understands that this EOMA68 board is *not*
libre hardware as claimed.
LKCL made it clear already: the EOMA68 circuit board design is not libre
hardware for now, but may be liberated in the future.
Where (except for the Parabola news we just fixed) did you see anyone claim that
it's libre hardware?
Yes, I've been explaining this separately in the Trisquel-users forum:

https://trisquel.info/en/forum/re-dev-misleading-information-eoma68-news

Sadly, I couldn't Cc the other lists while posting directly in the forum
and I have posted directly in the forum because it takes some time for a
mail in the Trisquel-users mailing list to be posted automatically in
the forum as well.

The claim that it's "libre hardware" originates, of course, in their
crowdfunding campaign, where they state that "This project has been
extremely unusual in that it has been a Libre Hardware and Software
project right from the beginning. [...] A commitment to being fully
Libre is a critical strategic part of this project."

https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop

Hackerboards article, quoted in the campaign's page:

"The EOMA68-A20 COM and systems are claimed to be scrupulously “libre”
in both hardware and software"
http://hackerboards.com/open-source-com-and-carriers-become-3d-printable-computers/

Liliputing article, quoted in the campaign's page:

"Part of what makes the EOMA68 unusual is that all of the software,
hardware schematics, and even CAD files for the case design are all
available for free."
http://liliputing.com/2016/06/crowdfunding-begins-modular-eoma68-pc-system-laptop-desktop-upgradeable-pc-card.html

Retro-Freedom article, quoted in the campaign's page:

"we need computers that [...] Are based on libre hardware designs. [...]
Why the EOMA68 solves our problems"
http://retro-freedom.nz/blog/2016/06/30/eoma68-my-dream-machine/

Xataka article, quoted in the campaign's page:

"Parte de la gracia que tiene el sistema está en la en que todo lo que
lo rodea es libre y gratuito. Me explico, tanto el software, como los
esquemas de hardware, además de los ficheros CAD, son de libre acceso"
http://www.xataka.com/makers/el-cerebro-de-todos-tus-gadgets-puede-caber-en-una-cartera-eoma68

And other articles quoted in the campaign's page reiterate the same claim.

Additionally, the discussions have been reiterating the same claim:

"Open Source" Hardware Association's mailing list:

http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/2016-August/001865.html

"Open" Manufacturing Group's mailing list:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/5Wi1poeK4B4/02CC4uLMAAAJ
(https://groups.google.com/forum/#!aboutgroup/openmanufacturing)

Free Software Foundation community mailing list LibrePlanet-discuss:

Thread #1: EOMA68 - We have to get Free Hardware!

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2016-07/msg00023.html

Thread #2: EOMA68 - libre software, libre hardware, and eco-

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2016-07/msg00002.html

And the list can go on.
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-26 02:29:29 UTC
Permalink
The project is claiming to be a libre hardware/software project, not
that everything has been released yet.
Then it's not a libre hardware project yet!

And need I remind you that outside your organization there is an
organization/user of an EOMA68 computer which haven't received the
product as a libre hardware product, because free PCB files have not
been provided?

https://trisquel.info/en/forum/re-dev-misleading-information-eoma68-news#comment-101871
Adam Van Ymeren
2016-08-26 02:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
The project is claiming to be a libre hardware/software project, not
that everything has been released yet.
Then it's not a libre hardware project yet!
And need I remind you that outside your organization there is an
organization/user of an EOMA68 computer which haven't received the
product as a libre hardware product, because free PCB files have not
been provided?
Did they ask for the PCB files?
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/re-dev-misleading-information-eoma68-news#
comment-101871
Christopher Waid
2016-08-26 03:41:49 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
The project is claiming to be a libre hardware/software project,
not
that everything has been released yet.
Then it's not a libre hardware project yet!
And need I remind you that outside your organization there is an
organization/user of an EOMA68 computer which haven't received the
product as a libre hardware product, because free PCB files have not
been provided?
Did they ask for the PCB files?
No.
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/re-dev-misleading-information-eoma68-news#comment-101871
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
[2]
------
[1] tel:26.08.2016%2005
[2]
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/re-dev-misleading-information-eoma68-news#comment-101871
Adam Van Ymeren
2016-08-26 03:55:24 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
The project is claiming to be a libre hardware/software project,
not
that everything has been released yet.
Then it's not a libre hardware project yet!
And need I remind you that outside your organization there is an
organization/user of an EOMA68 computer which haven't received the
product as a libre hardware product, because free PCB files have not
been provided?
Did they ask for the PCB files?
No.
Didn't think so :p. I was pointing out that it's not a violation simple to
have not received the schematics if you didn't request them. Just like
when you receive a binary from a GPL'd software product it's not a GPL
violation to not receive the source code at the same time.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/re-dev-misleading-information
-eoma68-news#comment-101871
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
[2]
------
[1] tel:26.08.2016%2005
[2]
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/re-dev-misleading-information
-eoma68-news#comment-101871
Christopher Waid
2016-08-26 03:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
The project is claiming to be a libre hardware/software project, not
that everything has been released yet.
Then it's not a libre hardware project yet!
It is. All owners of this hardware have the schematics and the rights
thereof to redistribute.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
And need I remind you that outside your organization there is an
organization/user of an EOMA68 computer which haven't received the
product as a libre hardware product, because free PCB files have not
been provided?
This is not correct for multiple reasons. For one what the FSF reviewed
was not the final hardware. The hardware they have reviewed was an early
prototype that demonstrated we would be in compliance with RYF. The FSF
does not have any units for RYF yet. Under RYF you would be correct.
They would in that case get to keep the units/own them. The units they
were given were on loan. We still owned them. A company can utilize free
software and refuse to provide its employees with the source and still
be in compliance.
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/re-dev-misleading-information-eoma68-news#comment-101871
Christopher Waid
2016-08-26 02:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Le vendredi 26 août 2016 à 01:26 +0300, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic a
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Adonay Felipe Nogueira
This issue of "you said it is 'libre' but I prove it's not", and even
the issue regarding the older publication on ThinkPenguin's site, can be
easily solved by changing terms/words accordingly there. There's no need
to make everyone mad at each other.
It's not just about terminology. It's about deliberately misinforming
the people to back your project because it's been libre hardware and
libre software "right from the beginning". And also misinforming people
to think it's OK for their freedom to buy laptops with proprietary BIOS
rather than with Libreboot.
Richard Stallman has just confirmed me that FSF has not received the PCB
design sources along with the Libre Tea Computer Card.
I hope that now everyone understands that this EOMA68 board is *not*
libre hardware as claimed.
LKCL made it clear already: the EOMA68 circuit board design is not libre
hardware for now, but may be liberated in the future.
Where (except for the Parabola news we just fixed) did you see anyone claim that
it's libre hardware?
On the crowd funding page it does clearly say what has and has not been
released *YET*, but will be:

We are working with the FSF to apply for RYF Certification of the Libre
Tea Computer Card for example, but are also going way beyond that by
providing full CAD files, schematics, and datasheets for all the parts
(without NDAs) as well as having the 3D CAD files for the casework as a
completely open GPLv3+ licensed project right from its inception. In
addition, all firmware and kernel sources are GPL-licensed and will
always remain so, and have been vetted in advance and do not contain any
copyright violations or proprietary license-violating blobs (an
extremely common practice nowadays).

The only exception to this rule to release everything in advance is the
PCB CAD files for the Computer Card. We’re planning to release the PCB
CAD files for the Computer card once sufficient units are hit that
ensures any third party manufacturing runs will not undermine the
project’s development or stability.
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-26 02:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Adonay Felipe Nogueira
This issue of "you said it is 'libre' but I prove it's not", and even
the issue regarding the older publication on ThinkPenguin's site, can be
easily solved by changing terms/words accordingly there. There's no need
to make everyone mad at each other.
It's not just about terminology. It's about deliberately misinforming
the people to back your project because it's been libre hardware and
libre software "right from the beginning". And also misinforming people
to think it's OK for their freedom to buy laptops with proprietary BIOS
rather than with Libreboot.
Richard Stallman has just confirmed me that FSF has not received the PCB
design sources along with the Libre Tea Computer Card.
I hope that now everyone understands that this EOMA68 board is *not*
libre hardware as claimed.
That doesn't make it "*not* libre hardware" as far as the FSF is
concerned. The FSF *DOES NOT* require the PCB designs for RYF.
RYF doesn't certify free hardware design. But "libre hardware" means
free-design hardware and that is explained in this essay you should read
sometimes:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html

Using the definition there, of course EOMA68 computer is *not* "libre
hardware".
Christopher Waid
2016-08-26 03:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Post by Adonay Felipe Nogueira
This issue of "you said it is 'libre' but I prove it's not", and even
the issue regarding the older publication on ThinkPenguin's site, can be
easily solved by changing terms/words accordingly there. There's no need
to make everyone mad at each other.
It's not just about terminology. It's about deliberately
misinforming
the people to back your project because it's been libre hardware and
libre software "right from the beginning". And also misinforming people
to think it's OK for their freedom to buy laptops with proprietary BIOS
rather than with Libreboot.
Richard Stallman has just confirmed me that FSF has not received the PCB
design sources along with the Libre Tea Computer Card.
I hope that now everyone understands that this EOMA68 board is *not*
libre hardware as claimed.
That doesn't make it "*not* libre hardware" as far as the FSF is
concerned. The FSF *DOES NOT* require the PCB designs for RYF.
RYF doesn't certify free hardware design. But "libre hardware" means
free-design hardware and that is explained in this essay you should read
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html
Using the definition there, of course EOMA68 computer is *not* "libre
hardware".
Actually it is libre. The hardware has not been shipped. Everybody who
has the devices has the schematics and rights thereof. You don't have to
give the source code to random people, just those you give the binary
to. In similar terms there is no reason this should not be true of libre
hardware.
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2016-08-26 02:54:53 UTC
Permalink
tiberiu: please cease and desist from emailing me. you are not
authorised to use my email address.
Josh Branning
2016-08-24 20:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Others: what do you think of this version? Please acknowledge when you think
https://pad.partidopirata.com.ar/p/parabola-eoma/timeslider#310
I think this revision fits the bill and is ready.

Josh
Isaac David
2016-08-25 05:05:14 UTC
Permalink
OK, this sounds like consensus. We have made enough of a
fuss over this little thing,
https://pad.partidopirata.com.ar/p/parabola-eoma/timeslider#429
is now live.

Adonay took care of the last concerns raised by Paul after
revision 310. I decided not to touch on the licensing of
hardware design files at all, so as to not speculate either
way. I would love to see those released in the future, but
future-proofing the reliability of this information is more
important. The link will still contain the phrase "libre
hardware"; I would not like to break it.

Thanks all.

- --
isacdaavid
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-08-25 08:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Isaac David
OK, this sounds like consensus. We have made enough of a
fuss over this little thing,
https://pad.partidopirata.com.ar/p/parabola-eoma/timeslider#429
is now live.
Looks good to me.
Post by Isaac David
Adonay took care of the last concerns raised by Paul after
revision 310. I decided not to touch on the licensing of
hardware design files at all, so as to not speculate either
way. I would love to see those released in the future, but
future-proofing the reliability of this information is more
important. The link will still contain the phrase "libre
hardware"; I would not like to break it.
I agree, thanks!
--
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Josh Branning
2016-08-25 11:42:30 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
OK, this sounds like consensus. We have made enough of a
fuss over this little thing,
https://pad.partidopirata.com.ar/p/parabola-eoma/timeslider#429
is now live.
Adonay took care of the last concerns raised by Paul after
revision 310. I decided not to touch on the licensing of
hardware design files at all, so as to not speculate either
way. I would love to see those released in the future, but
future-proofing the reliability of this information is more
important. The link will still contain the phrase "libre
hardware"; I would not like to break it.
Thanks all.
- --
isacdaavid
Thanks for this. I think you've made the right decision. I didn't
realise that the A20 has a Mali400 GPU, so the bit about there not being
a free 3D graphics driver /may/ have been a mistake on my part.
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-08-25 11:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Branning
Post by Isaac David
The link will still contain the phrase "libre
hardware"; I would not like to break it.
Thanks for this. I think you've made the right decision.
IMO, this is not okay. Changing the link and then having the old one
redirect to this new one is the right thing to do.
Adonay Felipe Nogueira
2016-08-24 11:56:34 UTC
Permalink
I might be wrong in the case of hardware designs, but as far as I know,
a copyright proprietor/owner/holder or a redistributor can choose not to
publish the hardware design on the Internet and still be considered
free/libre as long as he does one of the following:

* Provide a written offer together with the physical hardware that gives
anyone the right to request the complete corresponding sources/designs
at least for a period of 3 years after the product's date of
publication. This assumes that the hardware design is under the GPL 3
"or later" license.

* Provide the hardware design together with the physical hardware.

There **might** have other details that I overlooked or forgot to study
or mention, so please read the GPL 3 license for more information.
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-08-25 08:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adonay Felipe Nogueira
I might be wrong in the case of hardware designs, but as far as I know,
a copyright proprietor/owner/holder or a redistributor can choose not to
publish the hardware design on the Internet and still be considered
* Provide a written offer together with the physical hardware that gives
anyone the right to request the complete corresponding sources/designs
at least for a period of 3 years after the product's date of
publication. This assumes that the hardware design is under the GPL 3
"or later" license.
* Provide the hardware design together with the physical hardware.
You're right, there is no obligation to make it public, especially before the
product is released. Good that we dropped the part about libre hardware then.
--
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2016-09-10 16:43:31 UTC
Permalink
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
so - as you know i was too busy to deal with the assumptions made
which indicated a lack of research as well as a lack of trust (because
of the ****-ups made by purism), that in turn allowed various people
to attack this 5-year-long (so far) project.

AS WAS ALREADY MADE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR on the crowdfunding page, and
was ALREADY COMMITTED TO WITH PUBLIC LIBRE-LICENSED RELEASES OF
SCHEMATICS AND CAD DOCUMENTS DATING BACK SEVERAL YEARS, and REAFFIRMED
RIGHT NOW, i have updated one of the set of (eight) PCB / CAD
documents, this one is the microdesktop unit.

http://hands.com/~lkcl/eoma/microdesktop

AS PROMISED, there you will find FULL RESEARCH DOCUMENTS including
NDA-FREE datasheets (which were already there for 2 years)

AS PROMISED, there you will find FULL SCHEMATICS AND PCB DESIGN FILES
(not just pdfs outputted from the programs)

AS PROMISED, you will find gerber files for the PCB (which have gone
for evaluation and quotation to the factory)

you can probably tell i'm pretty cross at having been compared to
purism, but more than that i'm really angry at not being taken at my
word, and people having public discussions basically making out that
i'm a liar, when there's a *clear* publicly-auditable online
documentary evidence trail to the contrary.

now, i'm not perfect, so i appreciate people making the effort to
review what i'm doing. that's how mistakes are caught, which could
jeapordise the project. but doing a review on an arbitrary list
(instead of the one that's dedicated to the project) which *begins*
with "we don't trust anything that's been said because of some
company's failure" is pretty much bound to end up making a mess.

i trust that i don't have to make announcements of the type above
again: apologies also but i'll *not* be responding (except on the
arm-netbook list) to questions or comments on the above. i trust that
people can find the remaining documents for the other PCBs themselves,
or, that if they cannot find what they need, to CONTACT ME on the
appropriate mailing list,
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

very stressed and overloaded,

l.
Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
2016-09-10 16:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
http://hands.com/~lkcl/eoma/microdesktop
This link with and without trailing slash returns 403 Forbidden.

Could you please check?

Thanks,
Tiberiu
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2016-09-13 22:48:56 UTC
Permalink
sorted and added chmods to the Makefile so it doesn't happen again.
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
Post by Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic
Hi,
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
http://hands.com/~lkcl/eoma/microdesktop
This link with and without trailing slash returns 403 Forbidden.
Could you please check?
Thanks,
Tiberiu
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2016-09-10 19:38:34 UTC
Permalink
sorry, i'm receiving this as digest mode, from libreplanet, and
haven't been watching it (or the other lists cc'd). i'll try to
recreate the cc set of lists, apologies in advance if this doesn't get
through to all of them. also, please be aware that i'm leaving for HK
in about 10 hours time and it's an extremely long flight, so i'll be
offline for at least the next 2 days.

also i'm adding arm-netbook (needs subscription) because i'd like to
make people on that list aware of this discussion, which appears to
have been ongoing for some time.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Christopher Waid
I disagree. There is simply nothing you can compare this project to. We
are achieving results that can't be demonstrated via any other means. If
we could get here some other way at a lower cost with the same long term
impact I would have gone that route.
See what Olimex has been doing for years then.
you're aware that olimex operates as a criminal cartel, from shipping
GPL-violating A10 bootloaders and kernels provided by Allwinner, back
around 2011/2012? you're also aware that with the sole exception of
the olimex laptop's PCBs the only thing that they provide is
auto-generated PDFs *from* the schematics source code... not the
actual schematics and certainly not the PCB design files?
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
They're also coming up with a laptop design.
... where they've taken off-the-shelf china-sourced (proprietary)
casework: i started the GPLv3+ casework project for the EOMA68 15.6in
laptop housing *two years* ago as a completely and fully libre
project. you can verify that by looking at the git commit logs.

tsvetan has caused a hell of a lot of trouble for the EOMA68 project
and has sponged off of the resources of a *lot* of people. he truly
doesn't understand the word "libre". at all.

also, the A64's processor - which tsvetan is using for the olimex
laptop - requires a proprietary early-bootloader. in fact, the first
A64 SDK that came out was an absolute mess, comprising several GPL
violations in both the early-bootloader, the u-boot source *and* the
linux kernel. the SDK was even exclusively distributed over a chinese
illegal filesharing network (this is an "official" released SDK from
allwinner!)

over a considerable period of time, pine64 and the sunxi community
worked to eliminate as many of those GPL violations as they could, but
Allwinner insisted on keeping the early-bootloader proprietary.

so at present the A64 is classified as a "non-libre" processor. that
it's the basis of the olimex laptop tells you everything you need to
know.

to tsevetan's credit he is doing his best as he understands it, but
there's nobody taking him to task on the things that matter to
software freedom. he's happy to take your money even if it means
selling you product that requires proprietary software. he's *less*
happy to then *invest* that money into helping solve the issues which
create all the problems that go *with* proprietary software.

now, whilst tsevtan is making money selling you hardware that requires
non-free components to operate basic functions, i've put my foot down
and said NO, i will NOT sell GPL-violating product. i don't care if
that means it's harder to deliver ethical products, i'll deal with
that on an ongoing basis, but here's the thing: it means i've
established a reputation for setting some ethical rules *AND STUCK TO
THEM*.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
I agree that you went steps further than most before, but this is
incremental improvement, not something truly new and groundbreaking compared to
what existed before.
hmmm, an interesting perspective, which i feel may be based on not
being aware of the sheer overwhelming number of issues being tackled
(all at once).

yes it's "incremental improvement" but it's a MASSIVE stack of
MULTIPLE "incremental improvements", all done at once.

*nobody* has tried to do that before. not Dell, not Olimex, not IBM
- *nobody*.

for example you compare the EOMA68 Housing to the olimex laptop. the
olimex laptop's casework is proprietary (the EOMA68 Housing's is
GPLv3+ libre-licensed). so automatically you can see that it's
nowhere near being a legitimate comparison.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Christopher Waid
The issue is your looking at one thing. A few specs. It's not the specs?
that matter. It's the standard, it's the modularization, it's the?
response and cooperation we are getting already as a result of our?
actions here, etc. Intel and AMD are not going to cooperate and building?
off of other companies products (higher up the chain) is not a reliable?
long term solution.
Again, I don't see how modularization changes anything here.
you can't focus on just the one aspect and conclude that "it's not
significant". bear in mind that this has been a 5 year project, where
i've had 15 years of working near-exclusively with software libre,
looking at the endemic and systemic problems and coming up with a
*long-term* strategy to tackle *all* of the issues associated with the
consequences of proprietary computing... *all at once*.

modularisation (and having open standards despite what the
wikipedia-page-that's-already-scheduled-for-deletion would have you
believe) is one - *one* - critical - *critical* part of that strategy.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Hardware availability has never been the problem.
libre hardware availability has *always* been a problem. entropy
guarantees that it always will. you actually have to make a concerted
continuous effort to push back against the corner-cost-cutting of the
mass-volume industry.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
For laptops, we only had minor
annoyances,?like Wi-Fi chips that require proprietary firmwares,
proprietary firmware for WIFI is a bit more than a "minor" annoyance, paul!
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
with the most
advanced designs for freedom like ARM Chromebooks. So you took a step forward
there. It's not a revolution, it's a step forward: solving the (minor) Wi-Fi
issue. For single-board computers, you didn't bring any specific improvement
over Olimex's Allwinner boards.
at least we waited until we could get the entire set of sources for
as much of the hardware as we could get (the only exception being that
we haven't got a libre MALI driver yet, but there's even a plan to
deal with that).

no, paul, what you're missing here is that there's an *active
committment* to tackling the pain, cost burden and inconvenience that
proprietary software (and hardware) causes.

everybody else - Dell, IBM, HP, Asus, Olimex, they're all
*sleep-walking* - making MONEY off of you (and everyone else) because
you really don't know any better, you think it's *okay* to throw away
a perfectly good printer because its proprietary driver is no longer
"compatible" with modern OSes.

there's no *active* committment from any of these companies to
*actually* try and solve the problems.... because they don't
understand that there *is* even a problem!
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Again, I don't want to sound like your project doesn't matter to me, because it
really does. Only that it's an improved iteration over what exists rather than
whole new ground. And that's totally fine by the way, it is a very sane way to
go. It also shows that you're not the only person on earth caring about these
issues and producing hardware that solves an increasing number of them (even
though I suspect some other players produce devices with such results without
really aiming at that goal).
exactly. there's no coordinated committment. they sell you product
because you buy it... because you don't have any other choices, so you
don't ask, so you keep buying more product, which gives them money to
keep on doing what they're doing....

.... it's a vicious self-sustaining cycle that has to be broken by an
*active* committment.

ok i leave it at that.

l.
Josh Branning
2016-09-10 20:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
See what Olimex has been doing for years then.
you're aware that olimex operates as a criminal cartel, from shipping
GPL-violating A10 bootloaders and kernels provided by Allwinner, back
around 2011/2012? you're also aware that with the sole exception of
the olimex laptop's PCBs the only thing that they provide is
auto-generated PDFs *from* the schematics source code... not the
actual schematics and certainly not the PCB design files?
I think this is a little unfair to Olimex and is at least partially
untrue. For instance, schematics and pcb files CAN be found, for most of
their boards. [1]

Unlike your boards, which give a 404 forbidden message when trying to
access the server. [2] Hopefully this is something you can correct.

Though I can see that the advantage over the Olimex boards is that you
ship with a libre operating system from the start.

In regards to the A64 (used in the Olimex laptop), /mainline/ u-boot,
from the sunxi.org wiki [3]:

' Basic support for the A64 SoC has been been merged into 2016.05-rc1.
This covers UART, MMC and required GPIOs and clocks, but no Ethernet or
USB yet. Also as there is no information on the DRAM controller so far,
the SPL support is not enabled, so boot0 is required at the moment to
get U-Boot loaded.

Also, I think that the Olimex laptop has not yet been released, so that
gives developers time to build more support, before they start selling.

[1]
https://github.com/OLIMEX/OLINUXINO/tree/master/HARDWARE/A20-OLinuXino-LIME
[2] http://hands.com/~lkcl/eoma/microdesktop
[3] http://linux-sunxi.org/A64
IngeGNUe
2016-09-10 20:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Branning
Unlike your boards, which give a 404 forbidden message when trying to
access the server. [2] Hopefully this is something you can correct.
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
403 error is "forbidden", 404 is "not found"

I poked around the eoma parent directory and noticed that the same error
happened on some other files. I'm not a web person but as the error
states: "You don't have permission to access /~lkcl/eoma/microdesktop on
this server. Server unable to read htaccess file, denying access to be
safe" it's probably something to do with the .htaccess file on his
webserver.

As he mentioned he's going to be offline for a couple days so just give
him time.
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2016-09-10 21:06:18 UTC
Permalink
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
Post by IngeGNUe
403 error is "forbidden", 404 is "not found"
chmod ugo+rx ~/public_html/eoma/microdesktop, i'll add that to the
Makefile so it doesn't happen again. sorted, thanks for alerting me.
still here for the next 2-3 hours.

l.
IngeGNUe
2016-09-10 21:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
Post by IngeGNUe
403 error is "forbidden", 404 is "not found"
chmod ugo+rx ~/public_html/eoma/microdesktop, i'll add that to the
Makefile so it doesn't happen again. sorted, thanks for alerting me.
still here for the next 2-3 hours.
l.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Thank you Luke!

And my deepest thanks for your work and evident commitment to push for
full freedom in computing. I am sorry that you were regarded with
suspicion for the actions of the purism guy. I will add this link to my
blog, and look forward to purusing the files for edification!

IngeGNUe
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2016-09-14 00:07:35 UTC
Permalink
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
See what Olimex has been doing for years then.
you're aware that olimex operates as a criminal cartel, from shipping
GPL-violating A10 bootloaders and kernels provided by Allwinner, back
around 2011/2012? you're also aware that with the sole exception of
the olimex laptop's PCBs the only thing that they provide is
auto-generated PDFs *from* the schematics source code... not the
actual schematics and certainly not the PCB design files?
I think this is a little unfair to Olimex and is at least partially untrue.
For instance, schematics and pcb files CAN be found, for most of their
boards. [1]
yes - you're catching up (three people kindly pointed this out)
Unlike your boards, which give a 404 forbidden message when trying to access
the server. [2] Hopefully this is something you can correct.
it has. explained also in other posts since you replied to this.
Though I can see that the advantage over the Olimex boards is that you ship
with a libre operating system from the start.
which gives you a clear message: i will *not* compromise on software
freedom for the purposes of profit maximisation. actually it's more
specific than that: i will NOT put designs into people's hands when i
know that they will become distressed as a result (due to viruses
emptying their bank accounts, or being forced to spend money on
throwing away perfectly good hardware due to software driver
incompatibility and so on).
In regards to the A64 (used in the Olimex laptop), /mainline/ u-boot, from
u-boot is not the early bootloader. the early bootloader is proprietary.
' Basic support for the A64 SoC has been been merged into 2016.05-rc1.
This covers UART, MMC and required GPIOs and clocks, but no Ethernet or USB
yet. Also as there is no information on the DRAM controller so far, the SPL
support is not enabled, so boot0 is required at the moment to get U-Boot
loaded.
... and is that early bootloader, boot0, proprietary or not, yes or no?
Also, I think that the Olimex laptop has not yet been released, so that
gives developers time to build more support, before they start selling.
meanwhile, the opportunity has been totally lost, to put a financial
"foot down" (just as with NextThingCo did with Allwinner over the R8)
i.e. to say "no, allwinner, we will *not* place an order for 50,000
units with you *UNTIL* you give us the full source code including the
full source code of the early bootloader, boot0"

now the sunxi community is expected to pick up the pieces - unpaid -
and to clean up allwinner's mess. oh, but worse than that, the team
behind the Allwinner A64 think it's *OKAY* to consider boot0 to be
proprietary!

just because pine64 and olimex took your money instead of setting
software freedom as a first priority.

tell me: how is that okay? if you *really think* it is okay, explain how.

l.
Josh Branning
2016-09-14 09:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
See what Olimex has been doing for years then.
you're aware that olimex operates as a criminal cartel, from shipping
GPL-violating A10 bootloaders and kernels provided by Allwinner, back
around 2011/2012? you're also aware that with the sole exception of
the olimex laptop's PCBs the only thing that they provide is
auto-generated PDFs *from* the schematics source code... not the
actual schematics and certainly not the PCB design files?
I think this is a little unfair to Olimex and is at least partially untrue.
For instance, schematics and pcb files CAN be found, for most of their
boards. [1]
yes - you're catching up (three people kindly pointed this out)
Unlike your boards, which give a 404 forbidden message when trying to access
the server. [2] Hopefully this is something you can correct.
it has. explained also in other posts since you replied to this.
Though I can see that the advantage over the Olimex boards is that you ship
with a libre operating system from the start.
which gives you a clear message: i will *not* compromise on software
freedom for the purposes of profit maximisation. actually it's more
specific than that: i will NOT put designs into people's hands when i
know that they will become distressed as a result (due to viruses
emptying their bank accounts, or being forced to spend money on
throwing away perfectly good hardware due to software driver
incompatibility and so on).
In regards to the A64 (used in the Olimex laptop), /mainline/ u-boot, from
u-boot is not the early bootloader. the early bootloader is proprietary.
' Basic support for the A64 SoC has been been merged into 2016.05-rc1.
This covers UART, MMC and required GPIOs and clocks, but no Ethernet or USB
yet. Also as there is no information on the DRAM controller so far, the SPL
support is not enabled, so boot0 is required at the moment to get U-Boot
loaded.
... and is that early bootloader, boot0, proprietary or not, yes or no?
Also, I think that the Olimex laptop has not yet been released, so that
gives developers time to build more support, before they start selling.
meanwhile, the opportunity has been totally lost, to put a financial
"foot down" (just as with NextThingCo did with Allwinner over the R8)
i.e. to say "no, allwinner, we will *not* place an order for 50,000
units with you *UNTIL* you give us the full source code including the
full source code of the early bootloader, boot0"
now the sunxi community is expected to pick up the pieces - unpaid -
and to clean up allwinner's mess. oh, but worse than that, the team
behind the Allwinner A64 think it's *OKAY* to consider boot0 to be
proprietary!
just because pine64 and olimex took your money instead of setting
software freedom as a first priority.
tell me: how is that okay? if you *really think* it is okay, explain how.
l.
Getting rid of boot0 is not far away:

http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-sunxi.git;a=tree;f=board/sunxi;h=6419936f8b204d43c146ff5d8c88d1b0484fdcae;hb=refs/heads/next

I'm sure, and there is some evidence that Olimex puts pressure as it is
on Allwinner to release their code and stop ignoring GPL licensing
conditions.

You say Olimex made a GPL-violation and then basically made the fool of
you 'in-front of 20,000 people', but they seem otherwise. [1]

According to them, you were complaining that they hadn't released the
source early enough, because they hadn't written a tutorial of how to
build as soon as they released the images. Though I guess it is unclear
as to what actually happened back then. (lists.gpl-violations.org is down).

Either way, it doesn't really matter much, I appreciate what you're
doing, making another libre computer, and for that I am grateful. I'm
also pleased you posted the schematics and pcb files as you said you would.

Thanks again,

Josh

[1]
http://mail.olimex.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=kvhculms6ai4jjuiti1ija7fq5&topic=2278.msg10034#msg10034
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2016-09-14 10:34:15 UTC
Permalink
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Josh Branning
Post by Josh Branning
http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-sunxi.git;a=tree;f=board/sunxi;h=6419936f8b204d43c146ff5d8c88d1b0484fdcae;hb=refs/heads/next
i'm not sure why you're referencing this, josh - it
Post by Josh Branning
I'm sure, and there is some evidence that Olimex puts pressure as it is on
Allwinner to release their code and stop ignoring GPL licensing conditions.
you'll need to be more specific.
Post by Josh Branning
You say Olimex made a GPL-violation and then basically made the fool of you
'in-front of 20,000 people', but they seem otherwise. [1]
you'll need to reference archive.org to find the conversation.
tsvetan's disdain is very very clear. and he also, just as clearly,
doesn't actually answer the question.
Post by Josh Branning
According to them, you were complaining that they hadn't released the source
early enough, because they hadn't written a tutorial of how to build as soon
as they released the images.
i don't believe it (but i could be wrong - i often am). allwinner
hadn't actually released the source of the proprietary boot0
bootloader back then, and things were a total mess. i've yet to reply
but paul might actually be right about git.rhombus-tech.net because it
might contain (for example) libnand. i *think* on review of the code
i did go "i ain't frickin well putting *that* in the git repo" but
i'll have to double-check. it was a long time ago.
Post by Josh Branning
Though I guess it is unclear as to what
actually happened back then. (lists.gpl-violations.org is down).
it's permanently offline after the server was hacked. it won't be restored.
Post by Josh Branning
Either way, it doesn't really matter much, I appreciate what you're doing,
making another libre computer, and for that I am grateful. I'm also pleased
you posted the schematics and pcb files as you said you would.
various parts already were - have been for many years.

l.
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-09-11 13:04:11 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

Le samedi 10 septembre 2016 à 20:38 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton a
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Christopher Waid
I disagree. There is simply nothing you can compare this project to. We
are achieving results that can't be demonstrated via any other means. If
we could get here some other way at a lower cost with the same long term
impact I would have gone that route.
See what Olimex has been doing for years then.
 you're aware that olimex operates as a criminal cartel,
This is a very strong accusation and I definitely do not share that perspective,
at all.
from shipping
GPL-violating A10 bootloaders and kernels provided by Allwinner, back
around 2011/2012?
Olimex has always been about producing community-friendly boards, not about the
software. Nevertheless, Olimex has been involved with the linux-sunxi community
from the early days and has always been very supportive, by providing developers
with hardware to work on, taking part in the community, etc.

What software they ship, or used to ship by default is IMHO a bit irrelevant.
They shipped whatever Allwinner provided but always supported community free
software effort. Also, when they started with Allwinner, mainline software
wasn't an option.
   you're also aware that with the sole exception of
the olimex laptop's PCBs the only thing that they provide is
auto-generated PDFs *from* the schematics source code... not the
actual schematics and certainly not the PCB design files?
Huh? This is factually not correct. Olimex has released the PCB source designs
of a number of Allwinner boards. That's what those .brd and .sch files are at:
https://github.com/OLIMEX/OLINUXINO/tree/master/HARDWARE/

Better yet, the latest one (A64) was designed with KiCad, so those design
sources can even be handled with free software! This is an unprecedented
achievement that even the EOMA68 project has not reached (yet).

Get https://github.com/OLIMEX/OLINUXINO/tree/master/HARDWARE/A64-OLinuXino/A64-O
linuXino_Rev_A and open it up with KiCad if you wish to see for yourself!
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
They're also coming up with a laptop design.
... where they've taken off-the-shelf china-sourced (proprietary)
casework: i started the GPLv3+ casework project for the EOMA68 15.6in
laptop housing *two years* ago as a completely and fully libre
project.  you can verify that by looking at the git commit logs.
Of course, I do agree that free mechanical designs are important and a great
thing to have, so I'm very happy that the EOMA laptop housing design is free.

But my focus here was about digital technology, not mechanical parts. This is
out of that scope.
tsvetan has caused a hell of a lot of trouble for the EOMA68 project
and has sponged off of the resources of a *lot* of people.  he truly
doesn't understand the word "libre".  at all.
I don't share that perspective. I think his contribution to freedom in digital
technology has been solid and significant. The devices he's producing show as
much.
also, the A64's processor - which tsvetan is using for the olimex
laptop - requires a proprietary early-bootloader.  in fact, the first
A64 SDK that came out was an absolute mess, comprising several GPL
violations in both the early-bootloader, the u-boot source *and* the
linux kernel.  the SDK was even exclusively distributed over a chinese
illegal filesharing network (this is an "official" released SDK from
allwinner!)
Of course, we all know that, but that's how you move forward! We can't just wait
for the situation to be magically resolved before considering producing hardware
with it, and staying away from it with a teen-feet-pole before. Simply because
no change will ensue of that. Olimex has the ability to create boards early-on,
that will encourage the community to work on this chip, and also create leverage
with Allwinner.

So it's really not about what the situation is right now, but about what it can
possibly become. Allwinner chips have *always* been a mess to deal with at
first, but efforts from companies like Olimex and the community made it possible
to have the kind of support we know today for chips like the A20.

Also bear in mind that you were able to get the EOMA68 together, with that level
of free software support, in part thanks to people like Tsvetan who put together
(free hardware) boards for the community to work on those chips and supported
their efforts early on, when the situation is indeed a mess.
over a considerable period of time, pine64 and the sunxi community
worked to eliminate as many of those GPL violations as they could, but
Allwinner insisted on keeping the early-bootloader proprietary.
so at present the A64 is classified as a "non-libre" processor.  that
it's the basis of the olimex laptop tells you everything you need to
know.
Again, you're looking at the situation right now, which indeed matches what you
describe. However, I think Olimex sees a lot of potential in A64 and so do I.
Only time will tell whether it was a dead-end or not.
now, whilst tsevtan is making money selling you hardware that requires
non-free components to operate basic functions, i've put my foot down
and said NO, i will NOT sell GPL-violating product.  i don't care if
that means it's harder to deliver ethical products, i'll deal with
that on an ongoing basis, but here's the thing: it means i've
established a reputation for setting some ethical rules *AND STUCK TO
THEM*.
Frankly, I don't care that a device doesn't work with free software right now if
it has potential to be liberated eventually and if producing that device can
create the leverage to drive exactly that effort. This is what has always
happened with Allwinner chips.

But of course, Olimex and you are not in the same position. They can afford to
produce boards with chips that still have very early free software support. On
the other hand, you need something that has good free software support. One
comes after the other.

I'm really surprised that you don't see things this way and attack Olimex for
what level of support their latest products have *right now*.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
I agree that you went steps further than most before, but this is
incremental improvement, not something truly new and groundbreaking compared to
what existed before.
 hmmm, an interesting perspective, which i feel may be based on not
being aware of the sheer overwhelming number of issues being tackled
(all at once).
 yes it's "incremental improvement" but it's a MASSIVE stack of
MULTIPLE "incremental improvements", all done at once.
From what I can see, the actual improvements (again, from the digital technology
side of things, so I'm not including the mechanical design) come down to not
including a Wi-Fi chip that requires proprietary software in a laptop design,
which is what had been lacking from the ARM Chromebooks. If you see anything
else, please state it clearly.

There are also rare occurences in your design, meaning that only few products
before (such as the ARM Chromebooks or the Novena) had reached that level of
support, such as: using a SoC that has few freedom flaws (GPU), having a free
software keyboard controller. We could also add free hardware design there (but
I'm still a bit confused about what the situation actually is and didn't take
the time to look it up properly).

If you feel like I'm missing something substantial, please let me know.
 *nobody* has tried to do that before.  not Dell, not Olimex, not IBM
- *nobody*.
 for example you compare the EOMA68 Housing to the olimex laptop.  the
olimex laptop's casework is proprietary (the EOMA68 Housing's is
GPLv3+ libre-licensed).  so automatically you can see that it's
nowhere near being a legitimate comparison.
Again, my point is about digital technology here, not mechanical parts.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Christopher Waid
The issue is your looking at one thing. A few specs. It's not the specs?
that matter. It's the standard, it's the modularization, it's the?
response and cooperation we are getting already as a result of our?
actions here, etc. Intel and AMD are not going to cooperate and building?
off of other companies products (higher up the chain) is not a reliable?
long term solution.
Again, I don't see how modularization changes anything here.
 you can't focus on just the one aspect and conclude that "it's not
significant".  bear in mind that this has been a 5 year project, where
i've had 15 years of working near-exclusively with software libre,
looking at the endemic and systemic problems and coming up with a
*long-term* strategy to tackle *all* of the issues associated with the
consequences of proprietary computing... *all at once*.
 modularisation (and having open standards despite what the
wikipedia-page-that's-already-scheduled-for-deletion would have you
believe) is one - *one* - critical - *critical* part of that strategy.
Again, everything you can do with modularization you could do by producing new
versions of boards. It solves the environmental problem and is convenient to
users, but has little to do with freedom in digital technology. If you have
actual specific point to counter those points (other than vague statements like
"part of a strategy"), I'd be happy to react to them.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Hardware availability has never been the problem.
 libre hardware availability has *always* been a problem.  entropy
guarantees that it always will.  you actually have to make a concerted
continuous effort to push back against the corner-cost-cutting of the
mass-volume industry.
So if we're talking about free hardware projects, then I'll agree that the
situation hasn't been that great. As far as I know, only Olimex, Novena and a
few others have been producing free hardware computers that work well with free
software.

But again, I'm still confused about the hardware freedom situation of your
device. The most meaningful part is, of course, the EOMA68 board with the A20,
not the carriers (even though having them as free hardware is very nice).

On the other hand, the availability of boards that have components that work
well with free software have never been a problem, there's not discussion to
have here.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
For laptops, we only had minor
annoyances,?like Wi-Fi chips that require proprietary firmwares,
 proprietary firmware for WIFI is a bit more than a "minor" annoyance, paul!
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there are easy and nearly painless
ways to solve these problems, by using external ath9k_htc USB dongles. This fact
(and this fact only) reduces the presence of a Wi-Fi peripheral that requires a
non-free firmware to a minor annoyance.
(the only exception being that
we haven't got a libre MALI driver yet, but there's even a plan to
deal with that).
Glad to hear it.
 no, paul, what you're missing here is that there's an *active
committment* to tackling the pain, cost burden and inconvenience that
proprietary software (and hardware) causes.
Well, I have been talking about the freedom situation in digital technology all
along, not commitment. I do agree that commitment such as the one displayed with
your project is a rare thing. And that is indeed groundbreaking (even though
projects like the Novena were here before), because that kind of intent is
clearly lacking from e.g. companies producing Chromebooks, so it rather feels
like we got lucky (or that people inside these companies care a lot, but it
doesn't reflect in the company's PR).

Commitment is important for the long run, so I'm really glad you're around. We
can't just rely on sheer luck to get devices that do well with free software
from mainstream manufacturers, even though we've had good luck a great number of
times already (and bad luck an astonishingly greater number of times, too).
 there's no *active* committment from any of these companies to
*actually* try and solve the problems.... because they don't
understand that there *is* even a problem!
I wouldn't include Olimex in that list, but I share your views on that.
 .... it's a vicious self-sustaining cycle that has to be broken by an
*active* committment.
Definitely, that's a (if not the only) reliable (but harder and perhaps more
dangerous) way to achieve progress for freedom in digital technology. Going with
luck has worked well in some areas (again, ARM Chromebooks), but we knows when
our luck will turn.

Even though this conversation may have taken a harsh tone at times and places, I
do believe we share the same views and only disagree on details (which fill up
most of our discussions here). I hope this is clear and this discussion doesn't
come across as a strong attack against what you're doing!

Cheers,
--
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2016-09-12 05:19:38 UTC
Permalink
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
Hi,
Le samedi 10 septembre 2016 à 20:38 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton a
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Christopher Waid
I disagree. There is simply nothing you can compare this project to. We
are achieving results that can't be demonstrated via any other means. If
we could get here some other way at a lower cost with the same long term
impact I would have gone that route.
See what Olimex has been doing for years then.
you're aware that olimex operates as a criminal cartel,
This is a very strong accusation and I definitely do not share that perspective,
at all.
it dates back several years. tsvetan's reaction when i brought this
up on the gpl-violations mailing list was to try to belittle me (in
front of 20,000 people) as a way to dodge the question. "what are you
talking about, idiot, you've totally failed to even bother to release
any product, what a total waster you are, har har, go away little
loser i don't have to answer your question because you are such a
failure" was the general gist of his response.
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
from shipping
GPL-violating A10 bootloaders and kernels provided by Allwinner, back
around 2011/2012?
Olimex has always been about producing community-friendly boards, not about the
software. Nevertheless, Olimex has been involved with the linux-sunxi community
from the early days
paul: you may not be aware that the linux-sunxi community formed
around the arm-netbook mailing list and resources. the people using
the resources that i set up decided to *create* the sunxi mailing list
and wiki and to form their own community.
and has always been very supportive, by providing developers
with hardware to work on, taking part in the community, etc.
that doesn't change the fact that the very early boards with the A10
processor were shipped by default with allwinner's original
GPL-violating bootloader, u-boot and linux kernel. now, the GPL is
very very clear: on request you must supply the *EXACT* source and
*EXACT* tools used to compile the *EXACT* binaries that were shipped.

if you can't do that, you MUST cease and desist distribution. if
you do not cease and desist distribution, you are no longer in
compliance with the license. if you are no longer in compliance with
the license but CONTINUE to distribute GPL code (without a license),
*that* is criminal infringement.

and if a company is in criminal infringement of copyright law, the
company is no longer operating as a company but is in fact an
organised crime syndicate: a criminal cartel.
What software they ship, or used to ship by default is IMHO a bit irrelevant.
They shipped whatever Allwinner provided
... which was GPL violating. which was why i never shipped product.
i waited until the full GPL source was available. which took several
years.
but always supported community free software effort.
Also, when they started with Allwinner, mainline software
wasn't an option.
that's no excuse, paul.

you're aware that it was me who released the very first allwinner
u-boot and linux kernel sources, for the a10? i obtained them from
allwinner and immediately made them available on git.rhombus-tech.net.
tom cubie, who was an allwinner employee at the time, bought some Mele
A1000s and, in a very enterprising spirit, sold them as $50 developer
boards from his aliexpress account. from there he went on to develop
his own company, made the first cubieboard and began selling it.

at around the same time the linux-sunxi community was set up... but
it *started* on arm-netbook.
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
you're also aware that with the sole exception of
the olimex laptop's PCBs the only thing that they provide is
auto-generated PDFs *from* the schematics source code... not the
actual schematics and certainly not the PCB design files?
Huh? This is factually not correct. Olimex has released the PCB source designs
https://github.com/OLIMEX/OLINUXINO/tree/master/HARDWARE/
yeah, elena kindly pointed this out as well [on arm-netbook - thanks
elena, really appreciated that you - and paul too - corrected me here]
i've been head-down on the eoma68 designs for the last three of the
past five years, so wasn't even aware these resources *existed*.
Better yet, the latest one (A64) was designed with KiCad, so those design
sources can even be handled with free software! This is an unprecedented
achievement that even the EOMA68 project has not reached (yet).
there's a reason for that: i'm not an electronics engineer (and KiCAD
simply wasn't ready for use). five years ago i asked on the
arm-netbook mailing list if anybody would like to help out, in return
for profit-sharing in the end result. due to some "deliberate"
misunderstandings (which are still going around the internet) various
people saw my offer as a "demand" instead of what it genuinely was: an
offer to share in the profits. i won't go into details.

so, i began to try to use KiCAD myself (see
http://git.rhombus-tech.net/?p=eoma.git). it didn't go very well.
there were some severe bugs in KiCAD (that have still yet to be fixed)
that make using KiCAD for such large BGA ICs a near impossibility: i
had to hand-edit the library parts. when it came to actually doing
the PCBs the lack of professional-level features met head-long with my
lack of knowledge of electronics CAD design and i began to realise
very very quickly that i was completely out of my depth.

rather than end up spending time (and money) doing iterative PCB
design (which could be a bottomless pit) i made a number of other
efforts to invite other people to profit-share in the planned project
scope, but in the end these also fell through and i had to teach
myself electronics CAD design. with no experience in this field i was
forced into the position of first paying people to do CAD designs for
me, and then later when there wasn't a financial budget available,
learning and using the professional CAD software that we'd paid those
people to develop the designs in.

now, EOMA68 succeeds in the engineering arena by making it simpler
for people to update sophisticated products at a fraction of the cost
of other "monolithic" designs. a "monolithic" design is typically a
minimum of a 4-layer PCB to cover the SoC and the DDR3 RAM. if
there's a 64-bit RAM path you are usually looking at a 6-layer or
8-layer PCB. that's *expensive* territory: $700 for QTY 5 PCBs, $400
for components, and $600 for assembly. make a single mistake and it's
another $1800 and another 4-6 weeks turnaround.

and at the end of all that effort, you're "on the clock" as to the
usefulness of the product, because the key part - the processor - is
going to be superceded very very quickly. with specialist
vendor-lockin on the various interfaces you're even *more* on the
hook, especially if the fabless semi company doing the SoC doesn't
"grok" libre principles and releases GPL-violating android-only
binaries.

now, what if there were "modules" which you knew complied to a simple
interface that you could just get off-the-shelf, even from Best Buy or
Walmart, and could make a simply 2-layer PCB around it? that would be
amazing, wouldn't it?

what would be even better would be if there were plenty of example
schematics and PCB designs around that you could work from, that were
simple 2-layer PCBs that you could pay china or eastern european
companies to make with a 48-hour turnaround at the fraction of the
cost of 4+ layer PCBs? it would be *even better* if those reference
designs were available as gEDA or KiCAD designs, wouldn't it?

so this is why i started that KiCAD-based set of designs back in
2011... unfortunately i haven't had time to come back and revisit
them. i understand from joe micha that KiCAD has a "Gerber Import"
feature, so it *should* be possible to import (and recreate) KiCAD GPL
compliant sources from pretty much any proprietary CAD package, with
quite a bit of work. i hear also that there are some proprietary
importers... it's complicated, hazardous, but doable.

all of these things i haven't got time to do immediately, myself, but
it is definitely part of the vision - it always was. i've not been
talking much online about these things because i've had to focus
instead on "getting it done". bringing the project out of that
critical "vapourware" barrier... but sticking to
Get https://github.com/OLIMEX/OLINUXINO/tree/master/HARDWARE/A64-OLinuXino/A64-O
linuXino_Rev_A and open it up with KiCad if you wish to see for yourself!
when the A64 doesn't require a proprietary bootloader, i'll start the
evaluation process again. however given that the A64 is a 40nm IC and
the Cortex A53 is 15% more power-hungry performance-watt-wise than a
Cortex A7 *and* it's limited to 2GB RAM as a hard limit, i'm much more
inclined to go with a quad-core Cortex A7 instead, or an 8-core 28nm
(or both).

currently "in the slot" for evaluation is the Samsung/Nexell S5P6818
and the Allwinner R40. both of those are an improvement over the A64.
the S5P6818 is a 28nm octa-core A53 so is power-equivalent to the R40
(40-28nm is a 2x power improvement, but it's double the number of
cores so roughly back up to the same power usage). we don't yet know
what geometry the R40 is, but if we assume it's 40nm then it will be
at least 15% more power-efficient than the A64.

basically it's highly likely that i'll skip the A64 entirely.
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
They're also coming up with a laptop design.
... where they've taken off-the-shelf china-sourced (proprietary)
casework: i started the GPLv3+ casework project for the EOMA68 15.6in
laptop housing *two years* ago as a completely and fully libre
project. you can verify that by looking at the git commit logs.
Of course, I do agree that free mechanical designs are important and a great
thing to have, so I'm very happy that the EOMA laptop housing design is free.
But my focus here was about digital technology, not mechanical parts. This is
out of that scope.
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
tsvetan has caused a hell of a lot of trouble for the EOMA68 project
and has sponged off of the resources of a *lot* of people. he truly
doesn't understand the word "libre". at all.
I don't share that perspective.
you didn't see the message he wrote (and deleted in under 48 hours)
when he announced the A64 laptop project. when somebody pointed out
that the A64 SDK was *yet another* example of GPL-violating crapware
from allwinner, and that it contained a proprietary early-bootloader
as well as GPL-violating binary-only libraries (libnand... AGAIN...
god those scripts from tom cubie's manager back in 2011 have got to
die...) tsvetan responded something along the lines of, "to be honest
i really don't understand the fuss over this proprietary blob stuff".

when i returned 48 hours later he'd deleted the message.
I think his contribution to freedom in digital
technology has been solid and significant.
The devices he's producing show as much.
given that he's released the designs of a number of products -
libre-licensed full SCH and PCB files which i wasn't aware of before -
i have to agree with you. but be under absolutely no illusion that
it's all "roses". he's prepared to compromise on ethics (because he
doesn't understand their importance - as in he *genuinely* doesn't
understand it). he'd rather take your money.
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
also, the A64's processor - which tsvetan is using for the olimex
laptop - requires a proprietary early-bootloader. in fact, the first
A64 SDK that came out was an absolute mess, comprising several GPL
violations in both the early-bootloader, the u-boot source *and* the
linux kernel. the SDK was even exclusively distributed over a chinese
illegal filesharing network (this is an "official" released SDK from
allwinner!)
Of course, we all know that, but that's how you move forward! We can't just wait
for the situation to be magically resolved before considering producing hardware
with it, and staying away from it with a teen-feet-pole before.
true.
Simply because
no change will ensue of that. Olimex has the ability to create boards early-on,
that will encourage the community to work on this chip, and also create leverage
with Allwinner.
ok. right. are you familiar with the story behind the Allwinner R8
"NextThingCo" "CHIP" computer? that was going to be a GPL-violating
product until some people on the crowd-funding campaign pointed out
that it would be a bit of a problem for a USA-based company to be
importing copyright-violating product.

so, NextThingCo had a rather urgent meeting with Allwinner (one of
the team worked for them so knew who to call), and basically "put
their foot down". they said, in effect, "give us the source, or you
don't get the order. oh... and we have 50,000 orders".

end result? allwinner's R-Series team is now scrambling to get fully
GPL-compliant source code out the door (and i am arranging to go over
to the main office in Zhuhai in a few days time to help them out).

*THIS* is what both Pine64 and Tsvetan *SHOULD* have done with the
A64. they should have said, "give us the source, or you don't get our
money". it's only 200 lines of code in this case: libdram is mostly
identical in all versions, there's one main function (the DDR3
initialisation).

because they *didn't* put their foot down when it mattered, the sunxi
community is now forced to reverse-engineer libdram.

these kinds of compromises when it matters are *VITAL* lost
opportunities.... all because people like Tsvetan and the team at
Pine64 prefer to take your money.
So it's really not about what the situation is right now, but about what it can
possibly become. Allwinner chips have *always* been a mess to deal with at
first, but efforts from companies like Olimex and the community made it possible
to have the kind of support we know today for chips like the A20.
paul, i reiterate here: the sunxi community exists because of my
early efforts :) i *am* aware of the sunxi community's work since
then: i've been an indirect contributor myself (i did the
reverse-engineering of USB-FEL that allowed the sunxi-tools fel-boot
program to be completed - i used usbmon from outside of a qemu session
running LIVESUIT.EXE to sniff the usb traffic).
Also bear in mind that you were able to get the EOMA68 together, with that level
of free software support, in part thanks to people like Tsvetan who put together
(free hardware) boards for the community to work on those chips and supported
their efforts early on, when the situation is indeed a mess.
this isn't historically accurate: back in 2010, 2011 it was my first
release of the A10 u-boot and kernel source, and the rhombus-tech
wiki, arm-netbook mailing list and irc channel, using the Mele A1000
and then tom cubie's cubieboards that allowed the sunxi community to
first form: tsvetan's boards came out at least a year later (i think)
than the first cubieboard. *later* boards - around... probably
something like.... 2012: *then* yes, you are correct.
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
over a considerable period of time, pine64 and the sunxi community
worked to eliminate as many of those GPL violations as they could, but
Allwinner insisted on keeping the early-bootloader proprietary.
so at present the A64 is classified as a "non-libre" processor. that
it's the basis of the olimex laptop tells you everything you need to
know.
Again, you're looking at the situation right now, which indeed matches what you
describe. However, I think Olimex sees a lot of potential in A64 and so do I.
Only time will tell whether it was a dead-end or not.
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
now, whilst tsevtan is making money selling you hardware that requires
non-free components to operate basic functions, i've put my foot down
and said NO, i will NOT sell GPL-violating product. i don't care if
that means it's harder to deliver ethical products, i'll deal with
that on an ongoing basis, but here's the thing: it means i've
established a reputation for setting some ethical rules *AND STUCK TO
THEM*.
Frankly, I don't care that a device doesn't work with free software right now if
it has potential to be liberated eventually
this is an extremely exhausting approach that burdens the entire
sunxi community with a hell of a lot of unpaid work.... and will
result in each and every processor being *years* behind. if it takes
2 years to complete the reverse-engineering, that's an *entire
generation* behind! look at how long it took to get the full source
together for the A20! in the meantime the A33, A31, A83 *and* the A64
came out!

as a community we simply cannot be expected to shoulder the burden of
responsibility for clearing up Allwinner's mess, only to be "rewarded"
with having to tolerate being at least *TWO YEARS* behind the times in
terms of what processors are available for us to use in libre
projects! that's completely insane!

no. i REJECT that approach.
But of course, Olimex and you are not in the same position.
it's much more than that. i'm first and foremost a software libre
engineer and advocate. i place libre principles FIRST. i do NOT
place "making money" first and foremost. i choose NOT to compromise
on software freedom.

and i also choose to FIND WAYS to GET software freedom and to create
an ethical business.

so it's not that we are not "in the same position", it's that we
operate *FROM* totally different positions. Tsvetan (and pine64, and
numerous china-based OEMs) operate from the basis of "money first,
software freedom second".
I'm really surprised that you don't see things this way and attack Olimex for
what level of support their latest products have *right now*.
as you can see from the length of what i've outlined above, it's
complicated. summary is: if you're prepared to prioritise "making
money" over "libre principles", basically you'll never get the source.
continuing to give money to allwinner *without* asking for the source
will basically give them the message that it's *OKAY* for them to
continue to violate the GPL. NextThingCo's ballsy gamble is working.
it's got the message across to the R-Series team that they *have* to
release the source.

remember: allwinner is a complicated company. there are multiple
very powerful investors, all of them carving out their own niches
under the "umbrella" of what we *believe* - from the outside - is a
single unified organisation: nothing could be further from the truth.
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
I agree that you went steps further than most before, but this is
incremental improvement, not something truly new and groundbreaking compared to
what existed before.
hmmm, an interesting perspective, which i feel may be based on not
being aware of the sheer overwhelming number of issues being tackled
(all at once).
yes it's "incremental improvement" but it's a MASSIVE stack of
MULTIPLE "incremental improvements", all done at once.
From what I can see, the actual improvements (again, from the digital technology
side of things, so I'm not including the mechanical design) come down to not
including a Wi-Fi chip that requires proprietary software in a laptop design,
which is what had been lacking from the ARM Chromebooks. If you see anything
else, please state it clearly.
there's too much to cover, paul. i'm not saying that lightly: the
fact that the ecocomputing whitepaper is seventeen *thousand* words
long is testament to that. it's not even specifically about the
actual *hardware*: the actual hardware specs is just a "response" (if
you will) to the systemic approach that i've taken, after doing an
extremely comprehensive analysis of the entire computing industry. if
you start with the whitepaper you'll begin to get a feel for what
EOMA68 is really about.
http://rhombus-tech.net/whitepapers/ecocomputing_07sep2015/

you have to bear in mind that the reactions of various people back in
2011 to what i was doing were so "wtf??" that i realised that i wasn't
going to get anywhere until i had working hardware. that took 3-4
years to get to the crowdfunding campaign, which meant that there's
been 3-4 *years* where i've been almost completely out of the picture
in the software libre world, it's been so intense that i had to just
"get on with it" (and i realised that i wasn't going to get any help,
so *had* to get it done myself).

the crowdfunding campaign was - is - just the beginning of emerging
from an extremely intense period of work, learning an entirely new
field (hardware design) in order to be in a position to influence an
entire industry and turn it away from the entropic field of
"proprietary software / hardware because it's cheaper". reality is:
it *isn't* cheaper (long-term).
There are also rare occurences in your design, meaning that only few products
before (such as the ARM Chromebooks or the Novena) had reached that level of
support, such as: using a SoC that has few freedom flaws (GPU), having a free
software keyboard controller. We could also add free hardware design there (but
I'm still a bit confused about what the situation actually is and didn't take
the time to look it up properly).
dr stallman and i have been talking about this (privately). the
terms "open hardware", "open source hardware" and "libre hardware" are
*all* very misleading, because "hardware" could mean *anything*. it
could be spoons, it could be heavy machinery, it could be casework, it
could be PCBs, it could be ASICs (actual silicon ICs).

so the whole episode (this thread) comes back to all of us (as a
community) using a rather thoroughly ambiguous term. if we want to be
clear, we should be using the words "libre PCB designs", "libre
casework designs" and so on - *not* "libre hardware". it's way too
general.

... oops... :)
If you feel like I'm missing something substantial, please let me know.
you're missing an entire five years of work - the entire rhombus-tech
initiative - which has run in parallel in the background side-by-side
with the sunxi community efforts. i've stayed off of the sunxi
resources because they're using nonfree infrastructure. sunxi mailing
list: runs off the non-free google groups. sunxi git repositories:
runs off the non-free github repositories. the key developers know me
(because they were originally members of the arm-netbook mailing
list), and we do occasionally talk (in private email) - but most
people who use the sunxi mailing list don't even know that i exist.
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
*nobody* has tried to do that before. not Dell, not Olimex, not IBM
- *nobody*.
for example you compare the EOMA68 Housing to the olimex laptop. the
olimex laptop's casework is proprietary (the EOMA68 Housing's is
GPLv3+ libre-licensed). so automatically you can see that it's
nowhere near being a legitimate comparison.
Again, my point is about digital technology here, not mechanical parts.
i'm lost, sorry. i don't quite follow what the term "digital
technology" refers to, but you use the term again below so i think i
might have been able to deduce what you mean from context... correct
me if i'm wrong.
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Christopher Waid
The issue is your looking at one thing. A few specs. It's not the specs?
that matter. It's the standard, it's the modularization, it's the?
response and cooperation we are getting already as a result of our?
actions here, etc. Intel and AMD are not going to cooperate and building?
off of other companies products (higher up the chain) is not a reliable?
long term solution.
Again, I don't see how modularization changes anything here.
you can't focus on just the one aspect and conclude that "it's not
significant". bear in mind that this has been a 5 year project, where
i've had 15 years of working near-exclusively with software libre,
looking at the endemic and systemic problems and coming up with a
*long-term* strategy to tackle *all* of the issues associated with the
consequences of proprietary computing... *all at once*.
modularisation (and having open standards despite what the
wikipedia-page-that's-already-scheduled-for-deletion would have you
believe) is one - *one* - critical - *critical* part of that strategy.
Again, everything you can do with modularization you could do by producing new
versions of boards.
no, you can't. read the ecocomputing whitepaper [and scan back up
several paragraphs]
It solves the environmental problem and is convenient to
users, but has little to do with freedom in digital technology.
you're correct here (and this is why i said that you're missing the
point by focussing exclusively on *one* aspect). so if you *only*
focus on the modularity, you'll be completely lost and won't
understand.

what is needed is to have modularity... *AND* commit to software
libre ethical principles. making this clear is extremely hard to do.
even the fact that i've just added a DRM section (it's banned) to the
EOMA68 standard *still* doesn't really get the full message across.
If you have
actual specific point to counter those points (other than vague statements like
"part of a strategy"), I'd be happy to react to them.
it's complicated, paul, and i'll be absolutely honest with you: i'm
*working out* how to get it across, what i'm doing and why. *five
years* and i still haven't been able to put what i'm doing into a
simple clear statement... because of the sheer overwhelming depth and
scale of what i'm attempting to do. it's so ambitious and audacious
that when i start explain it, many people react with total disbelief,
calling me "arrogant", "deluded" and many many other things which goes
a long, long way to explaining the rather vehement reactions that you
will see evidence of (if you look carefully enough).

so if you can promise *not* to react in the same way, i'll make an
effort to explain. deal?
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Hardware availability has never been the problem.
libre hardware availability has *always* been a problem. entropy
guarantees that it always will. you actually have to make a concerted
continuous effort to push back against the corner-cost-cutting of the
mass-volume industry.
So if we're talking about free hardware projects, then I'll agree that the
situation hasn't been that great. As far as I know, only Olimex, Novena and a
few others have been producing free hardware computers that work well with free
software.
But again, I'm still confused about the hardware freedom situation of your
device. The most meaningful part is, of course, the EOMA68 board with the A20,
not the carriers (even though having them as free hardware is very nice).
as i have the right (under the GPL) to release the CAD designs when i
actually ship, that's what i'll be doing. if i release the designs
*right now*, there's the severe risk that somebody may take the
designs and manufacture them *in advance* of me fulfilling my
committment to the backers of the campaign.

i *specifically state* - very very clearly - right there on the
crowdfunding campaign page - that this is why i will not be
IMMEDIATELY releasing the EOMA68-A20 CAD designs.

and i *specifically state* that *everything else* is made available in advance.

this fits closely with the EOMA68 strategy from an engineering
perspective, because the "computer" bit is not something that you
should be manufacturing in small volumes anyway: the whole point is
that if people group together to do "bulk buys" of EOMA68-XXX
computing modules, everybody benefits from mass-volume bulk volume
pricing whilst being at liberty to design and manufacture much simpler
"Housings" using only 2-layer boards.
On the other hand, the availability of boards that have components that work
well with free software have never been a problem, there's not discussion to
have here.
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
For laptops, we only had minor
annoyances,?like Wi-Fi chips that require proprietary firmwares,
proprietary firmware for WIFI is a bit more than a "minor" annoyance, paul!
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there are easy and nearly painless
ways to solve these problems, by using external ath9k_htc USB dongles.
you're aware that my sponsor, chris from thinkpenguin, was
responsible for bringing us the ath9k_htc libre firmware? that
chris's business model is founded around exactly the same ethical
committment to libre principles as are behind the EOMA68 initiative is
a big, big clue :)
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
no, paul, what you're missing here is that there's an *active
committment* to tackling the pain, cost burden and inconvenience that
proprietary software (and hardware) causes.
Well, I have been talking about the freedom situation in digital technology all
along, not commitment. I do agree that commitment such as the one displayed with
your project is a rare thing.
i'm prepared to prioritise libre principles over profit maximising,
that's all there is to it. the interesting side-effect of that is
that i've had to get *really* creative about how to fulfil the goal
[of bringing libre principles to mass-volume products].
And that is indeed groundbreaking (even though
projects like the Novena were here before),
you _are_ aware that the EOMA68 initiative _pre-dates_ the Novena, right? :)
because that kind of intent is
clearly lacking from e.g. companies producing Chromebooks, so it rather feels
like we got lucky (or that people inside these companies care a lot, but it
doesn't reflect in the company's PR).
yeah. i think now that chromebooks are out of the "R&D" phase (where
they began solely as a google initiative) and are now seen as an
actual profitable thing to "copy", we now see third party companies
independently designing chromebooks *without* the assistance or
involvement of google-sponsored engineering...

... and that's where you end up with the cost-cutting exercises such
as "using SD/MMC soldered-down SIP modules onto the main PCB which
require proprietary firmware"

now, here's where it gets interesting, because if you create an EOMA68
chrome OS computer card, libre compliance is pretty much a "hard
requirement"... because if it's not, chances are quite high that that
EOMA68 ChromeOS Card *won't work* in Housings that require proprietary
firmware.

why is that?

it's because you can't predict what peripherals future Housings will
have... so you have to always upgrade the OS on the Computer Card (so
that it's always compatible with the latest and greatest Housings and
any newer peripherals that might be in them).... now you have to
include *all* the bits of firmware that you can possibly get your
hands on, and if those are non-free proprietary WIFI firmware blobs,
now it gets really complicated. but if they're *libre* firmware, it's
a hell of a lot easier.

i really must put this as an "advisory" on the EOMA68 standard....
another thing for the TODO list...
Commitment is important for the long run, so I'm really glad you're around. We
can't just rely on sheer luck to get devices that do well with free software
from mainstream manufacturers, even though we've had good luck a great number of
times already (and bad luck an astonishingly greater number of times, too).
yyyeah... i learned recently that the latest chromebooks have
integrated WIFI (with proprietary firmware... argh) whereas previously
they had WIFI-as-a-USB-based-module-over-a-four-wire-cable).
cost-cutting exercises are clearly beginning to creep into chromebook
designs.... oops.
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
.... it's a vicious self-sustaining cycle that has to be broken by an
*active* committment.
Definitely, that's a (if not the only) reliable (but harder and perhaps more
dangerous) way to achieve progress for freedom in digital technology. Going with
luck has worked well in some areas (again, ARM Chromebooks), but we knows when
our luck will turn.
yeahyeah. it's why "businesses" (corporations) will never be trusted
to deliver (even at their own long-term expense), because they have to
prioritise "profit" above all else. USB-based WIFI dongles ($3) are
*always* going to be more expensive than soldered-down SD/MMC-based
SIP "modules" ($1.50)...
Even though this conversation may have taken a harsh tone at times and places, I
do believe we share the same views and only disagree on details (which fill up
most of our discussions here). I hope this is clear and this discussion doesn't
come across as a strong attack against what you're doing!
not at all. it's through these kinds of conversations that i'll be
able to clarify what the hell it is that i've been up to for five
years.

l.
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
2016-09-12 23:19:44 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 06:19:38AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
[...]
Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
that doesn't change the fact that the very early boards with the A10
processor were shipped by default with allwinner's original
GPL-violating bootloader, u-boot and linux kernel. now, the GPL is
very very clear: on request you must supply the *EXACT* source and
*EXACT* tools used to compile the *EXACT* binaries that were shipped.
if you can't do that, you MUST cease and desist distribution. if
you do not cease and desist distribution, you are no longer in
compliance with the license. if you are no longer in compliance with
the license but CONTINUE to distribute GPL code (without a license),
*that* is criminal infringement.
and if a company is in criminal infringement of copyright law, the
company is no longer operating as a company but is in fact an
organised crime syndicate: a criminal cartel.
[...]

Hi, Luke.

I appreciate a lot the work you have been doing. I can share some of
your feelings as well, as I have done some work to liberate a version of
Arduino, using Kicad, with my partner, who was an engineer.

And I also feel very angry about GPL violations as well, starting some
contributions to Linux in the hope I could do enforcement as a copyright
holder.

Now, I need to step in and say that accusing copyright infringement of
criminal offense is very dangerous. Unfortunately, some copyright
infringement in some jurisdictions is considered a crime. And that's bad
for the people in general, who cannot share because of copyright law and
can't benefit from research done by others, who may be specially
endangered because of laws like DMCA.

In my opinion, we should not vouch for such laws, even if they were to
protect software freedom. That's not to say that it is immoral to take
software freedom from people, more so if that freedom was available as a
copyleft work. And maybe even that it should be illegal to do so. But it
should not be a criminal offense, but a civil one.

Regards.
Cascardo.
Paul Kocialkowski
2016-09-13 20:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Le samedi 10 septembre 2016 à 20:38 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton a
Post by Christopher Waid
I disagree. There is simply nothing you can compare this project to.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Christopher Waid
We
are achieving results that can't be demonstrated via any other means. If
we could get here some other way at a lower cost with the same long term
impact I would have gone that route.
See what Olimex has been doing for years then.
 you're aware that olimex operates as a criminal cartel,
This is a very strong accusation and I definitely do not share that perspective,
at all.
 it dates back several years.  tsvetan's reaction when i brought this
up on the gpl-violations mailing list was to try to belittle me (in
front of 20,000 people) as a way to dodge the question. "what are you
talking about, idiot, you've totally failed to even bother to release
any product, what a total waster you are, har har, go away little
loser i don't have to answer your question because you are such a
failure" was the general gist of his response.
Someone brought up the EOMA68 at the Olimex forums and it is clear from that
discussion alone that there is a lot of bad blood between you two:
https://www.olimex.com/forum/index.php?topic=4383.msg18469

Frankly, I'm not interested in those kinds of ego clashes and speculated bad
intentions. I know you both have made contributions to freedom in digital
technology, that I appreciate. This is what I find to matter the most.

I am not sure Olimex's boards have shipped with Allwinner's GPL-violating
software preinstalled (some of them do not come with NAND). It is regrettable if
they did and it would have been much better to avoid that.

I think that offering the GPL-violating software for download separately would
have been a lesser evil (even though not quite acceptable). Perhaps this is what
they did, perhaps not.

Either way, I do not need to have an umbrella statement about Olimex as a
company. Their products helped the freedom in digital technology front and I'm
grateful for that. Perhaps they also did bad things, such as promoting and
distributing GPL-violating binaries. But so do a great number of other companies
that are also doing good on some aspects and much less on others. This is the
case of Google, IBM and many other.

I think such general considerations are only relevants to evaluate whether an
individual or a company is dedicated to helping us solve digital technology
freedom issues, or is only doing it sporadically. In that case, you may conclude
that Olimex falls in the latter position. I'm personally not quite sure about
it, but I do agree that shipping Allwinner's GPL-violating software is a
drawback in that regard. However, as I've mentioned before, I know first hand
that Olimex has been supportive of the linux-sunxi community (when many, many
other Allwinner board vendors barely acknowledges it).
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Christopher Waid
 from shipping
GPL-violating A10 bootloaders and kernels provided by Allwinner, back
around 2011/2012?
Olimex has always been about producing community-friendly boards, not about the
software. Nevertheless, Olimex has been involved with the linux-sunxi community
from the early days
 paul: you may not be aware that the linux-sunxi community formed
around the arm-netbook mailing list and resources.  the people using
the resources that i set up decided to *create* the sunxi mailing list
and wiki and to form their own community.
I have to admit that had skipped my mind when writing those previous emails. I
do recall that linux-sunxi was initially started on the arm-netbook mailing
list. And indeed, I also recall seeing your name around for a long time.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
and has always been very supportive, by providing developers
with hardware to work on, taking part in the community, etc.
that doesn't change the fact that the very early boards with the A10
processor were shipped by default with allwinner's original
GPL-violating bootloader, u-boot and linux kernel.  now, the GPL is
very very clear: on request you must supply the *EXACT* source and
*EXACT* tools used to compile the *EXACT* binaries that were shipped.
That's making an umbrella statement about Olimex, which I don't think is very
relevant. There's good and there's bad there.
if you can't do that, you MUST cease and desist distribution.   if
you do not cease and desist distribution, you are no longer in
compliance with the license.  if you are no longer in compliance with
the license but CONTINUE to distribute GPL code (without a license),
*that* is criminal infringement.
and if a company is in criminal infringement of copyright law, the
company is no longer operating as a company but is in fact an
organised crime syndicate: a criminal cartel.
I have to say, this sounds over-exaggerated to me. In French, the word "crime"
only refers to the most serious offenses. But Wikipedia apparently states that
crime is not so precisely defined in English. Oh well.

Still, I don't really see a need for pointing fingers this way. Stating that the
distribute GPL-violating software is the informative thing to do. I don't see
the point of getting personal about the company with harsh considerations
(however technically correct these considerations may be). It also feels like an
attempt to discredit Olimex, to be honest. I believe all parties would be better
of without that kind of heat, by staying factual and informative.

Also, let's not forget that Allwinner's the culprit for all this mess in the
first place. Olimex may has been a distributor of it, which may be the same from
the copyright law's standpoint, but I think it makes a big difference. You may,
of course, disagree with these personal views.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Also, when they started with Allwinner, mainline software
wasn't an option.
 that's no excuse, paul.
 you're aware that it was me who released the very first allwinner
u-boot and linux kernel sources, for the a10?  i obtained them from
allwinner and immediately made them available on git.rhombus-tech.net.
tom cubie, who was an allwinner employee at the time, bought some Mele
A1000s and, in a very enterprising spirit, sold them as $50 developer
boards from his aliexpress account.  from there he went on to develop
his own company, made the first cubieboard and began selling it.
Then you were, in fact, in the same position of distributing GPL-violating
binaries. Unless you stripped them off off that release?

I think this makes you understand the kind of tricky position this leads to.
People need those GPL-violating binaries (for some of them, for direct use, for
others, to do reverse engineering), so I wouldn't send the first stone to the
distributor, but to the company that caused the problem in the first place.

So nobody wants to distribute them, but people need them. I'm really not sure
what the right thing to do here. And frankly, if everyone had stayed away from
it with a ten-feet-pole, we wouldn't be here today.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Better yet, the latest one (A64) was designed with KiCad, so those design
sources can even be handled with free software! This is an unprecedented
achievement that even the EOMA68 project has not reached (yet).
 there's a reason for that: i'm not an electronics engineer (and KiCAD
simply wasn't ready for use).   five years ago i asked on the
arm-netbook mailing list if anybody would like to help out, in return
for profit-sharing in the end result.  due to some "deliberate"
misunderstandings (which are still going around the internet) various
people saw my offer as a "demand" instead of what it genuinely was: an
offer to share in the profits.  i won't go into details.
You don't need to. Those are past stories, I'm rather interested in the state of
things as they are now.
 so, i began to try to use KiCAD myself (see
http://git.rhombus-tech.net/?p=eoma.git).  it didn't go very well.
there were some severe bugs in KiCAD (that have still yet to be fixed)
that make using KiCAD for such large BGA ICs a near impossibility: i
had to hand-edit the library parts.  when it came to actually doing
the PCBs the lack of professional-level features met head-long with my
lack of knowledge of electronics CAD design and i began to realise
very very quickly that i was completely out of my depth.
Of course, I'm not surprised. And I know that Olimex was only able to use KiCad
for such a complex project at the cost of lots of efforts, bugreports, etc. But
I'm really glad that they did and this is the kind of extra step that makes me
believe Olimex and Tsvetan are not only there to collect money but actually want
to push things forward on the freedom-in-technology front.
rather than end up spending time (and money) doing iterative PCB
design (which could be a bottomless pit) i made a number of other
efforts to invite other people to profit-share in the planned project
scope, but in the end these also fell through and i had to teach
myself electronics CAD design.  with no experience in this field i was
forced into the position of first paying people to do CAD designs for
me, and then later when there wasn't a financial budget available,
learning and using the professional CAD software that we'd paid those
people to develop the designs in.
 now, EOMA68 succeeds in the engineering arena by making it simpler
for people to update sophisticated products at a fraction of the cost
of other "monolithic" designs.  a "monolithic" design is typically a
minimum of a 4-layer PCB to cover the SoC and the DDR3 RAM.  if
there's a 64-bit RAM path you are usually looking at a 6-layer or
8-layer PCB.  that's *expensive* territory: $700 for QTY 5 PCBs, $400
for components, and $600 for assembly.  make a single mistake and it's
another $1800 and another 4-6 weeks turnaround.
and at the end of all that effort, you're "on the clock" as to the
usefulness of the product, because the key part - the processor - is
going to be superceded very very quickly.  with specialist
vendor-lockin on the various interfaces you're even *more* on the
hook, especially if the fabless semi company doing the SoC doesn't
"grok" libre principles and releases GPL-violating android-only
binaries.
This is interesting background (I'm quite familiar with it, but others may not
be, so it'll probably help them realize what a task designing that kind of
circuit board can be). Thanks for sharing it.
 now, what if there were "modules" which you knew complied to a simple
interface that you could just get off-the-shelf, even from Best Buy or
Walmart, and could make a simply 2-layer PCB around it?  that would be
amazing, wouldn't it?
I'm not sure this would solve the multi-layer requirement. Also, a standard
interface does have drawback, as it limits the possible number of interfaces
exported by the SoC board.
 what would be even better would be if there were plenty of example
schematics and PCB designs around that you could work from, that were
simple 2-layer PCBs that you could pay china or eastern european
companies to make with a 48-hour turnaround at the fraction of the
cost of 4+ layer PCBs?  it would be *even better* if those reference
designs were available as gEDA or KiCAD designs, wouldn't it?
Yeah, definitely. We're still a long way from that being a reality comparable to
what it is with software, but we're getting there :)
 so this is why i started that KiCAD-based set of designs back in
2011... unfortunately i haven't had time to come back and revisit
them.  i understand from joe micha that KiCAD has a "Gerber Import"
feature, so it *should* be possible to import (and recreate) KiCAD GPL
compliant sources from pretty much any proprietary CAD package, with
quite a bit of work.  i hear also that there are some proprietary
importers... it's complicated, hazardous, but doable.
I wouldn't expect those kinds of automatic imports to be 100% reliable,
especially for complex designs though. But it's great that it's there.
 all of these things i haven't got time to do immediately, myself, but
it is definitely part of the vision - it always was.  i've not been
talking much online about these things because i've had to focus
instead on "getting it done".  bringing the project out of that
critical "vapourware" barrier... but sticking to
That's great to hear!
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Get https://github.com/OLIMEX/OLINUXINO/tree/master/HARDWARE/A64-OLinuXino/A
64-O
linuXino_Rev_A and open it up with KiCad if you wish to see for yourself!
when the A64 doesn't require a proprietary bootloader, i'll start the
evaluation process again.  however given that the A64 is a 40nm IC and
the Cortex A53 is 15% more power-hungry performance-watt-wise than a
Cortex A7 *and* it's limited to 2GB RAM as a hard limit, i'm much more
inclined to go with a quad-core Cortex A7 instead, or an 8-core 28nm
(or both).
Whatever suits you best! But why stick to Allwinner platforms? Rockchip
platforms such as RK3288 (and possibly the upcoming RK3399) do just as well in
terms of software freedom. I guess you've also considered the i.MX6. GPU support
is being reviewed upstream as we speak. Tegra K1 is also really nice, but
perhaps more power-hungry. Is this really an issue for a non-mobile device
though?
 currently "in the slot" for evaluation is the Samsung/Nexell S5P6818
and the Allwinner R40.  both of those are an improvement over the A64.
the S5P6818 is a 28nm octa-core A53 so is power-equivalent to the R40
(40-28nm is a 2x power improvement, but it's double the number of
cores so roughly back up to the same power usage).  we don't yet know
what geometry the R40 is, but if we assume it's 40nm then it will be
at least 15% more power-efficient than the A64.
By the way, I'd be very interested in your notes and conclusions when evaluating
platforms!
 basically it's highly likely that i'll skip the A64 entirely.
Well, I guess it depends on your timeline. Perhaps free software support won't
be ready in time for the next generation of your products. Or maybe it's not
that interesting on the technical side either.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
I think his contribution to freedom in digital
technology has been solid and significant.
The devices he's producing show as much.
 given that he's released the designs of a number of products -
libre-licensed full SCH and PCB files which i wasn't aware of before -
i have to agree with you.  but be under absolutely no illusion that
it's all "roses".  he's prepared to compromise on ethics (because he
doesn't understand their importance - as in he *genuinely* doesn't
understand it).   he'd rather take your money.
I hear you.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Christopher Waid
also, the A64's processor - which tsvetan is using for the olimex
laptop - requires a proprietary early-bootloader.  in fact, the first
A64 SDK that came out was an absolute mess, comprising several GPL
violations in both the early-bootloader, the u-boot source *and* the
linux kernel.  the SDK was even exclusively distributed over a chinese
illegal filesharing network (this is an "official" released SDK from
allwinner!)
Of course, we all know that, but that's how you move forward! We can't just wait
for the situation to be magically resolved before considering producing hardware
with it, and staying away from it with a teen-feet-pole before.
 true.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Simply because
no change will ensue of that. Olimex has the ability to create boards early-
on,
that will encourage the community to work on this chip, and also create leverage
with Allwinner.
 ok.  right.  are you familiar with the story behind the Allwinner R8
"NextThingCo" "CHIP" computer?  that was going to be a GPL-violating
product until some people on the crowd-funding campaign pointed out
that it would be a bit of a problem for a USA-based company to be
importing copyright-violating product.
Hehe, yeah I'm aware of it.
 so, NextThingCo had a rather urgent meeting with Allwinner (one of
the team worked for them so knew who to call), and basically "put
their foot down".  they said, in effect, "give us the source, or you
don't get the order.  oh... and we have 50,000 orders".
 end result?  allwinner's R-Series team is now scrambling to get fully
GPL-compliant source code out the door (and i am arranging to go over
to the main office in Zhuhai in a few days time to help them out).
I didn't know about those details. I'm really glad you're helping with this,
too.
 *THIS* is what both Pine64 and Tsvetan *SHOULD* have done with the
A64. they should have said, "give us the source, or you don't get our
money".  it's only 200 lines of code in this case: libdram is mostly
identical in all versions, there's one main function (the DDR3
initialisation).
 because they *didn't* put their foot down when it mattered, the sunxi
community is now forced to reverse-engineer libdram.
That's an interesting perspective. It would be interesting to bring it up with
those companies to see what they have tried or why they didn't try to take that
stand.
 these kinds of compromises when it matters are *VITAL* lost
opportunities....
I would tend to agree with you on this one. Hardware manufacturers have leverage
in those situations, so it's sad that they don't use it.
all because people like Tsvetan and the team at
Pine64 prefer to take your money.
There's probably a wide range of possible explanations for this. It's not
certain that these companies' volumes matter. But either way, I'd be interested
in starting that discussion to see where each actor stands on this.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
So it's really not about what the situation is right now, but about what it can
possibly become. Allwinner chips have *always* been a mess to deal with at
first, but efforts from companies like Olimex and the community made it possible
to have the kind of support we know today for chips like the A20.
 paul, i reiterate here: the sunxi community exists because of my
early efforts :)  i *am* aware of the sunxi community's work since
then: i've been an indirect contributor myself (i did the
reverse-engineering of USB-FEL that allowed the sunxi-tools fel-boot
program to be completed - i used usbmon from outside of a qemu session
running LIVESUIT.EXE to sniff the usb traffic).
Great to hear and sorry for implying it was not the case.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Also bear in mind that you were able to get the EOMA68 together, with that level
of free software support, in part thanks to people like Tsvetan who put together
(free hardware) boards for the community to work on those chips and supported
their efforts early on, when the situation is indeed a mess.
 this isn't historically accurate: back in 2010, 2011 it was my first
release of the A10 u-boot and kernel source, and the rhombus-tech
wiki, arm-netbook mailing list and irc channel, using the Mele A1000
and then tom cubie's cubieboards that allowed the sunxi community to
first form: tsvetan's boards came out at least a year later (i think)
than the first cubieboard.  *later* boards - around... probably
something like.... 2012: *then* yes, you are correct.
Same here, sorry for not connecting the dots earlier. I'm now under no
impression that you just waited idle and got your product out after others did
the work for you.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Christopher Waid
over a considerable period of time, pine64 and the sunxi community
worked to eliminate as many of those GPL violations as they could, but
Allwinner insisted on keeping the early-bootloader proprietary.
so at present the A64 is classified as a "non-libre" processor.  that
it's the basis of the olimex laptop tells you everything you need to
know.
Again, you're looking at the situation right now, which indeed matches what you
describe. However, I think Olimex sees a lot of potential in A64 and so do I.
Only time will tell whether it was a dead-end or not.
Post by Christopher Waid
now, whilst tsevtan is making money selling you hardware that requires
non-free components to operate basic functions, i've put my foot down
and said NO, i will NOT sell GPL-violating product.  i don't care if
that means it's harder to deliver ethical products, i'll deal with
that on an ongoing basis, but here's the thing: it means i've
established a reputation for setting some ethical rules *AND STUCK TO
THEM*.
Frankly, I don't care that a device doesn't work with free software right now if
it has potential to be liberated eventually
 this is an extremely exhausting approach that burdens the entire
sunxi community with a hell of a lot of unpaid work.... and will
result in each and every processor being *years* behind.  if it takes
2 years to complete the reverse-engineering, that's an *entire
generation* behind!  look at how long it took to get the full source
together for the A20!  in the meantime the A33, A31, A83 *and* the A64
came out!
It may not be the most efficient strategy, but I'm saying that it's something.
The situation is much worse on a number of other platforms, where we have no
friendly circuit board manufacturer at all.
 as a community we simply cannot be expected to shoulder the burden of
responsibility for clearing up Allwinner's mess, only to be "rewarded"
with having to tolerate being at least *TWO YEARS* behind the times in
terms of what processors are available for us to use in libre
projects!  that's completely insane!
 no.  i REJECT that approach.
Again, I'm not saying it's optimal and good as it is. But it's something and has
lead to results (that were, indeed delayed by years due to the technical burden
that Allwinner induced by requiring the community to do reverse engineering).
But considering the size of the task, I think the community has done an amazing
job here.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
But of course, Olimex and you are not in the same position.
 it's much more than that.  i'm first and foremost a software libre
engineer and advocate.  i place libre principles FIRST.  i do NOT
place "making money" first and foremost.  i choose NOT to compromise
on software freedom.
 and i also choose to FIND WAYS to GET software freedom and to create
an ethical business.
 so it's not that we are not "in the same position", it's that we
operate *FROM* totally different positions.  Tsvetan (and pine64, and
numerous china-based OEMs) operate from the basis of "money first,
software freedom second".
Again, I'm not sure I fully share your stand on Olimex, but I sure am glad to
see read this about the way you're conducting your effort. I am grateful there
are people like you around.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Christopher Waid
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
I agree that you went steps further than most before, but this is
incremental improvement, not something truly new and groundbreaking
compared
to
what existed before.
 hmmm, an interesting perspective, which i feel may be based on not
being aware of the sheer overwhelming number of issues being tackled
(all at once).
 yes it's "incremental improvement" but it's a MASSIVE stack of
MULTIPLE "incremental improvements", all done at once.
From what I can see, the actual improvements (again, from the digital technology
side of things, so I'm not including the mechanical design) come down to not
including a Wi-Fi chip that requires proprietary software in a laptop design,
which is what had been lacking from the ARM Chromebooks. If you see anything
else, please state it clearly.
there's too much to cover, paul.  i'm not saying that lightly: the
fact that the ecocomputing whitepaper is seventeen *thousand* words
long is testament to that.  it's not even specifically about the
actual *hardware*: the actual hardware specs is just a "response" (if
you will) to the systemic approach that i've taken, after doing an
extremely comprehensive analysis of the entire computing industry.  if
you start with the whitepaper you'll begin to get a feel for what
EOMA68 is really about.
http://rhombus-tech.net/whitepapers/ecocomputing_07sep2015/
That's probably a fascinating read, but you're again talking about an approach
here, not technical differences that matter from the perspective of freedom in
technology, about the product you're releasing now. This is the specific aspect
I wanted to highlight and get feedback on, not your general attitude.
 the crowdfunding campaign was - is - just the beginning of emerging
from an extremely intense period of work, learning an entirely new
field (hardware design) in order to be in a position to influence an
entire industry and turn it away from the entropic field of
it *isn't* cheaper (long-term).
I realize that, I have actually been following your work from a distance for
some time and I'm glad it finally got concrete.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
There are also rare occurences in your design, meaning that only few products
before (such as the ARM Chromebooks or the Novena) had reached that level of
support, such as: using a SoC that has few freedom flaws (GPU), having a free
software keyboard controller. We could also add free hardware design there (but
I'm still a bit confused about what the situation actually is and didn't take
the time to look it up properly).
 dr stallman and i have been talking about this (privately).  the
terms "open hardware", "open source hardware" and "libre hardware" are
*all* very misleading, because "hardware" could mean *anything*.  it
could be spoons, it could be heavy machinery, it could be casework, it
could be PCBs, it could be ASICs (actual silicon ICs).
 so the whole episode (this thread) comes back to all of us (as a
community) using a rather thoroughly ambiguous term.  if we want to be
clear, we should be using the words "libre PCB designs", "libre
casework designs" and so on - *not* "libre hardware".  it's way too
general.
I believe the PCB design is the source form of the technology. Printed circuit
boards are the product form and the technology itself can be referred to as
"circuit boards". Just like software (form of technology) has source code
(source form) and binaries (product form). We can distinguish that from
Integrated chips, another aspects of digital technology.

I will be (and have been) using this specific terminology. I rarely talk about
"free hardware" in general (and even less  so about "open hardware'. However,
this confusion is very common, so it's good to bring it up.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
If you feel like I'm missing something substantial, please let me know.
 you're missing an entire five years of work - the entire rhombus-tech
initiative - which has run in parallel in the background side-by-side
with the sunxi community efforts.  i've stayed off of the sunxi
resources because they're using nonfree infrastructure.  sunxi mailing
runs off the non-free github repositories.  the key developers know me
(because they were originally members of the arm-netbook mailing
list), and we do occasionally talk (in private email) - but most
people who use the sunxi mailing list don't even know that i exist.
Again, these are not the aspects I'm commenting about.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Christopher Waid
 *nobody* has tried to do that before.  not Dell, not Olimex, not IBM
- *nobody*.
 for example you compare the EOMA68 Housing to the olimex laptop.  the
olimex laptop's casework is proprietary (the EOMA68 Housing's is
GPLv3+ libre-licensed).  so automatically you can see that it's
nowhere near being a legitimate comparison.
Again, my point is about digital technology here, not mechanical parts.
 i'm lost, sorry.  i don't quite follow what the term "digital
technology" refers to, but you use the term again below so i think i
might have been able to deduce what you mean from context... correct
me if i'm wrong.
Digital technology refers to digital electronic technology, which includes
software, hardware configuration, circuit boards and integrated circuits.

Case design and mechanical parts don't fall into that scope.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Christopher Waid
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Christopher Waid
The issue is your looking at one thing. A few specs. It's not the specs?
that matter. It's the standard, it's the modularization, it's the?
response and cooperation we are getting already as a result of our?
actions here, etc. Intel and AMD are not going to cooperate and building?
off of other companies products (higher up the chain) is not a reliable?
long term solution.
Again, I don't see how modularization changes anything here.
 you can't focus on just the one aspect and conclude that "it's not
significant".  bear in mind that this has been a 5 year project, where
i've had 15 years of working near-exclusively with software libre,
looking at the endemic and systemic problems and coming up with a
*long-term* strategy to tackle *all* of the issues associated with the
consequences of proprietary computing... *all at once*.
 modularisation (and having open standards despite what the
wikipedia-page-that's-already-scheduled-for-deletion would have you
believe) is one - *one* - critical - *critical* part of that strategy.
Again, everything you can do with modularization you could do by producing new
versions of boards.
 no, you can't.  read the ecocomputing whitepaper [and scan back up
several paragraphs]
I probably will then, I find the subject quite interesting anyway.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
It solves the environmental problem and is convenient to
users, but has little to do with freedom in digital technology.
 you're correct here (and this is why i said that you're missing the
point by focussing exclusively on *one* aspect).
Well, what I asked was what I was missing about digital technology freedom
aspects, not what other aspects I was missing. I'm well aware that your project
comes with a much broader approach, that you have described a bit already
throughout this conversation.
  so if you *only*
focus on the modularity, you'll be completely lost and won't
understand.
 what is needed is to have modularity... *AND* commit to software
libre ethical principles.  making this clear is extremely hard to do.
even the fact that i've just added a DRM section (it's banned) to the
EOMA68 standard *still* doesn't really get the full message across.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
If you have
actual specific point to counter those points (other than vague statements like
"part of a strategy"), I'd be happy to react to them.
 it's complicated, paul, and i'll be absolutely honest with you: i'm
*working out* how to get it across, what i'm doing and why.  *five
years* and i still haven't been able to put what i'm doing into a
simple clear statement... because of the sheer overwhelming depth and
scale of what i'm attempting to do.  it's so ambitious and audacious
that when i start explain it, many people react with total disbelief,
calling me "arrogant", "deluded" and many many other things which goes
a long, long way to explaining the rather vehement reactions that you
will see evidence of (if you look carefully enough).
 so if you can promise *not* to react in the same way, i'll make an
effort to explain.  deal?
Again, I think you're misunderstand what I'm asking here. I'm not asking about
the approach (but feel free to provide a comprehensive introduction to it, I
feel it is quite interesting). I'm talking about the specific level of support
of the products you're releasing now in regard to freedom in digital technology.

Also, I can guess how vast your effort is and how much work it represents. This
most certainly naturally explains why it took such a long time to actually get
something concrete produced from all these ideas.

And frankly, I'm not one to make personal attacks, so I don't think you have to
fear that sort of reaction from me :)
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Christopher Waid
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Hardware availability has never been the problem.
 libre hardware availability has *always* been a problem.  entropy
guarantees that it always will.  you actually have to make a concerted
continuous effort to push back against the corner-cost-cutting of the
mass-volume industry.
So if we're talking about free hardware projects, then I'll agree that the
situation hasn't been that great. As far as I know, only Olimex, Novena and a
few others have been producing free hardware computers that work well with free
software.
But again, I'm still confused about the hardware freedom situation of your
device. The most meaningful part is, of course, the EOMA68 board with the A20,
not the carriers (even though having them as free hardware is very nice).
 as i have the right (under the GPL) to release the CAD designs when i
actually ship, that's what i'll be doing.  if i release the designs
*right now*, there's the severe risk that somebody may take the
designs and manufacture them *in advance* of me fulfilling my
committment to the backers of the campaign.
Of course, you don't have to do anything until your products go live anyway!
 i *specifically state* - very very clearly - right there on the
crowdfunding campaign page - that this is why i will not be
IMMEDIATELY releasing the EOMA68-A20 CAD designs.
 and i *specifically state* that *everything else* is made available in
advance.
 this fits closely with the EOMA68 strategy from an engineering
perspective, because the "computer" bit is not something that you
should be manufacturing in small volumes anyway: the whole point is
that if people group together to do "bulk buys" of EOMA68-XXX
computing modules, everybody benefits from mass-volume bulk volume
pricing whilst being at liberty to design and manufacture much simpler
"Housings" using only 2-layer boards.
Okay.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
On the other hand, the availability of boards that have components that work
well with free software have never been a problem, there's not discussion to
have here.
Post by Christopher Waid
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
For laptops, we only had minor
annoyances,?like Wi-Fi chips that require proprietary firmwares,
 proprietary firmware for WIFI is a bit more than a "minor" annoyance, paul!
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there are easy and nearly painless
ways to solve these problems, by using external ath9k_htc USB dongles.
 you're aware that my sponsor, chris from thinkpenguin, was
responsible for bringing us the ath9k_htc libre firmware?  that
chris's business model is founded around exactly the same ethical
committment to libre principles as are behind the EOMA68 initiative is
a big, big clue :)
Yes, I am well aware! Such a great thing to have. It has severely alleviated the
pain associated with Wi-Fi.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Christopher Waid
 no, paul, what you're missing here is that there's an *active
committment* to tackling the pain, cost burden and inconvenience that
proprietary software (and hardware) causes.
Well, I have been talking about the freedom situation in digital technology all
along, not commitment. I do agree that commitment such as the one displayed with
your project is a rare thing.
 i'm prepared to prioritise libre principles over profit maximising,
that's all there is to it.  the interesting side-effect of that is
that i've had to get *really* creative about how to fulfil the goal
[of bringing libre principles to mass-volume products].
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
And that is indeed groundbreaking (even though
projects like the Novena were here before),
 you _are_ aware that the EOMA68 initiative _pre-dates_ the Novena, right? :)
True, they just got it shipping faster (Bunnie is quite used to EE and the
Chinese circuit-board-making ecosystem, so that must have been a great help).
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
because that kind of intent is
clearly lacking from e.g. companies producing Chromebooks, so it rather feels
like we got lucky (or that people inside these companies care a lot, but it
doesn't reflect in the company's PR).
 yeah.  i think now that chromebooks are out of the "R&D" phase (where
they began solely as a google initiative) and are now seen as an
actual profitable thing to "copy", we now see third party companies
independently designing chromebooks *without* the assistance or
involvement of google-sponsored engineering...
Really? I haven't seen any such example, and I'm not sure that Google will allow
any company to do this under the ChromeOS brand name. But I'm all ears for
details :)
 ... and that's where you end up with the cost-cutting exercises such
as "using SD/MMC soldered-down SIP modules onto the main PCB which
require proprietary firmware"
Well, they have been using eMMC modules on ARM devices because most of them
don't have SATA or PCI-e interfaces. But I seem to recall that earlier x86
Chromebooks did use SATA disks. This is anyway a very common practice on those
kinds of devices. And any MMC card (soldered or not), just like any USB storage
key, comes with a proprietary firmware.
now, here's where it gets interesting, because if you create an EOMA68
chrome OS computer card, libre compliance is pretty much a "hard
requirement"... because if it's not, chances are quite high that that
EOMA68 ChromeOS Card *won't work* in Housings that require proprietary
firmware.
 why is that?
 it's because you can't predict what peripherals future Housings will
have... so you have to always upgrade the OS on the Computer Card (so
that it's always compatible with the latest and greatest Housings and
any newer peripherals that might be in them).... now you have to
include *all* the bits of firmware that you can possibly get your
hands on, and if those are non-free proprietary WIFI firmware blobs,
now it gets really complicated.  but if they're *libre* firmware, it's
a hell of a lot easier.
From a technical perspective, I don't think this has been a drawback for
ChromeOS devices. And they're continuously updating the system, too.
 i really must put this as an "advisory" on the EOMA68 standard....
another thing for the TODO list...
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Commitment is important for the long run, so I'm really glad you're around. We
can't just rely on sheer luck to get devices that do well with free software
from mainstream manufacturers, even though we've had good luck a great number of
times already (and bad luck an astonishingly greater number of times, too).
 yyyeah... i learned recently that the latest chromebooks have
integrated WIFI (with proprietary firmware... argh) whereas previously
they had WIFI-as-a-USB-based-module-over-a-four-wire-cable).
cost-cutting exercises are clearly beginning to creep into chromebook
designs.... oops.
Again, not sure it's that. SDIO Wi-Fi modules have been really common all along.
And either way, it would be hard to replace them as everything's soldered
together. As long as we can use an external Wi-Fi dongle that runs with a free
firmware, I think we're good. This is why I don't focus on the Wi-Fi part that
much. Other aspects such as GPU support are a clearly much bigger task to
tackle.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Post by Christopher Waid
 .... it's a vicious self-sustaining cycle that has to be broken by an
*active* committment.
Definitely, that's a (if not the only) reliable (but harder and perhaps more
dangerous) way to achieve progress for freedom in digital technology. Going with
luck has worked well in some areas (again, ARM Chromebooks), but we knows when
our luck will turn.
 yeahyeah.  it's why "businesses" (corporations) will never be trusted
to deliver (even at their own long-term expense), because they have to
prioritise "profit" above all else.  USB-based WIFI dongles ($3) are
*always* going to be more expensive than soldered-down SD/MMC-based
SIP "modules" ($1.50)...
Either way, I agree we can't expect them to always make the choices that will
benefit freedom first.
Post by Paul Kocialkowski
Even though this conversation may have taken a harsh tone at times and places, I
do believe we share the same views and only disagree on details (which fill up
most of our discussions here). I hope this is clear and this discussion doesn't
come across as a strong attack against what you're doing!
 not at all.  it's through these kinds of conversations that i'll be
able to clarify what the hell it is that i've been up to for five
years.
Glad that we're good on that :) And yeah, I guess having to explain things makes
it a lot easier to present them clearly afterward.

Cheers,
--
Paul Kocialkowski, developer of low-level free software for embedded devices

Website: https://www.paulk.fr/
Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/
Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/
Loading...