[Arm-netbook] EOMA - Open Specification?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Jonathan Frederickson
<silverskullpsu at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey all. I've been following the progress here for a while, though I
> wasn't subscribed at the time. Something Luke said a while back
> concerned me, however:
>
> "so i am very sorry to have to spell it out, but you will *never* be a
> customer of *any* EOMA or QiMod products, *ever*, and you will *never*
> be granted a license to make EOMA-compatible products.  and that's not
> my decision, but we both have to live with that."
>
> I can understand being blacklisted as a customer, and removing all
> mention of EOMA, as it is (maybe?)

 not maybe: is.  why would you question that?

> a QiMod trademark. However, the bit
> about being granted a license to make EOMA-compatible products is
> troubling.

 jon: you may not have been following the discussions from the past
couple of years.

 you may have not seen the scenario discussions where 3rd parties get
the standard so badly wrong that they destroy not only the reputation
of the EOMA standards but also create short-circuits that cause fires,
destruction of personal property and possibly end up killing people.

 do you want that possibility to occur?

 if not, what solution would you offer?

 please, before saying "this is troubling" actually think it through.
if you can come up with an alternative strategy please describe it.

l.