[Arm-netbook] EOMA micro SD card boot image (alpha quality) with sata working available

[joem]

On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 15:36 +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 2:20 PM, joem <joem at martindale-electric.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 12:24 +0000, Derek wrote:
> >> joem <joem <at> martindale-electric.co.uk> writes:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 10:39 +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
> >> > > magic, joe, i see you've cut/paste it into the page.  bear in mind
> >> > > that you're now distributing GPL binaries so *may* receive requests
> >> >
> >> > $$$ krching!! $$$
> >> >
> >> > Bring it on I say if its a GPL compliant request.
> >> > I charge $90 per hour of work to download and package the sources
> >> > and put onto dvds and send (+p&p + taxes + cost of DVDs + I supply
> >> > one sweet FREE as in gratis with every shipment!!)
> >> >
> >>
> >> " If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent
> >> access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not
> >> be greater than the fee to download the binary."
> >>
> >> from
> >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee
> >
> >
> > Redundant.
> >
> >
> > "Equivalent access" is already given by pointing at the sources where it
> > can be downloaded for free.
> 
>  ok, so this is another primary reason why i have been pushing that
> you get up-to-speed on how to build these things, because you're
> required to provide [an equivalent for] the *exact* same source and
> tools.

All of which is not even a minor problem as I have exact sources and
will be adding those into the binary uSD card images including the tools
used to compile it from ubuntu sources. And if something is missing,
then we'll try it again until its fixed to prevent an open ended
drain on resources that would otherwise be the reality with publishing
recipes for success.

I'm waiting on 8Gb and 16Gb uSD cards to get started.
(Did I mention 64GB ssd images as well?)

>  if you don't *know* how the kernel etc. were built, because you did
> not successfully replicate it, that is no excuse, and you would be
> required to cease and desist distribution.
> 
>  merely pointing at the config file and saying "if you do this
> yourself you might have better luck than i had" would in no way be
> adequate.


It will all go into one script. The script can never lie.
Though interesting, the cold reality is that I don't need to know how
each line of the script worked unless I had to fix something
or customise something.

This is why I prefer to use uSD images, and fix every issue
because it can be persuaded to contain everything and leave no stone
unturned.

Publishing an equivalent recipe for success on the other hand
is just an open ended drain on resources. It keeps creating support
issues and keeps on propagating those issues to the next person and the
next until someone HAS TO collect everything and puts it into one place
and makes it gpl compliant. So you got double the trouble and half the
results and not much work got done in the middle!!

So cold reality is that recipes for success do not work,
and so you may as well start with the binary uSD images that do work
and then work through the GPL compliance thing because you MUST do that
at some stage.