[Arm-netbook] eoma and qimod

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Boris Barbour <barbour at biologie.ens.fr> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, none of this is very surprising once money enters the
> equation.

 it's a little stranger than that, as we've been working
commission-only basis for 4 years quite happily, and i've known my
associates for almost a decade now.

> I think what most people want to know is what does this mean for the designs
> and eoma concept?

 well, i designed them all: i never signed anything which *explicitly*
handed over the copyright of the designs.  i also own the copyright on
the *text* of what is on the elinux.org web site, which is as you know
under a creative commons license.

> (The name/trademarks are less of an issue given that the
> project has not taken off.) If the designs can be used and more developed
> (modulo a bit of legal sabre-rattling), I don't see the problem.

 me neither.  my associates won't like it, but yes.  just as bari said
(ironically) it's just a physical interface.

> As an aside, is there genuine private interest in the eoma concept and your
> associates are trying to drive you out? Or are they just bonkers?

 baislcally he is so embarrassed by the [joint!!!] decision to trust
people associated with the software libre world that he considers the
whole concept to be more than pointless but actually *detrimental* to
the "business interests of qimod" to allow it to continue.

 he therefore wants to turn qimod into a "simple and clear boxed
product" company, selling Intel NUC-style branded designs.

> There is
> clearly not the slightest dollar visible in this project at the moment and
> their actions seem designed to strangle it at birth.

 yes, because it is quotes embarrassing quotes to be associated with
software (libre) developers, because, in his view, they are all
completely incapable of handling basic business transactions or
delivering on their business promises.

 l.