[Arm-netbook] EOMA - Open Specification?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 2:11 PM, mike.valk at gmail.com
<mike.valk at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2014-05-26 0:22 GMT+02:00 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net>:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> The scary thought is that the EOMA standard might not get off because
> someone hogs to
> 1. Requires a unworkable fee to become compliant

well, think it through mike.  if the goal is "make use of free
software community and join them with factories" and a high fee
prevents and prohibits the free software community from being able to
participate, then that destroys the goal, doesn't it?

 so on that basis, what would you rate the chances of quotes high fees
quotes being involved?


> 2. Others may get blocked purly on ego

 that would be genuinely stupid.  as you probably know i am pretty
pathological about decision-making when it comes to achieving specific
goals.  things like "ego" don't come into it.  i assess "is this going
to further the goal, yes or no" and that really is the end of it:
there *is* no "this person is a dick therefore they are out".  they
can be as much of a dick as they like, as long as they get results
that don't jeapordise the goal.

  at some point i want a foundation, and a charter that i am happy
will be able to continue without my input - i will have other things
to do.  we are however looking at like 3-5 years into the future.

> If there is a "guide to EOMA compliancy", nobody should be to worried.

 good idea.  can i ask you a favour of putting some comments on the
elinux.org eoma page - discussion - suggesting what that should
entail?