[Arm-netbook] EOMA - Open Specification?

[Boris Barbour]

On 27/05/14 00:49, peter green wrote:
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>>  good point. let me think... i know: if he doesn't listen then i will
>> resign.  that would terminate the project as he needs my technical
>> expertise
> Your associate blacklisted someone because of a single launch product
> launch gone bad and that blacklisting extends not just to not
> collaborating with them on a product launch again (which would be
> perfecting understandable) but to banning them from using EOMA.
>
> By doing so he has sent the message "we will ban people from using EOMA
> for reasons other than using the EOMA name on a product that doesn't
> meet the spec". That is a seriously worrying message for anyone
> considering implementing EOMA based products.

I have to agree that Luke's argument is not great: how much expertise is 
required to say "no"? And any uncertainty about hardware freedom is a 
valid concern for potential contributors.

BUT, I think we're getting rather hung up on hypotheticals here. Luke 
started the whole projet to get mass-produced hardware that runs free 
software natively, respecting the GPL. He's put a huge amount of effort 
into that, trying many different avenues to progress. Such hardware 
would be great, even in the unlikely that the it were restricted in some 
way. Imagine if Samsung sold a totally unlocked chromebook with proper 
GPL drivers for everything. We'd all be thrilled.