[Arm-netbook] EOMA - Open Specification?

[mike.valk at gmail.com]

2014-05-26 15:49 GMT+02:00 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net>:

> 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?
>

I Know what your intentions are. I believe in them. And I believe
"Rhombus-Tech" won't hog it. It would be counter productive.

I was just playing "devils-advocate", I read "Ban" and "Remove EOMA from
all public notion" and "Never, ever". And I think so did others, and
expressed/felt some fear from recent events

You drew a hard-line, probably a good one, the idea needs to be protected.
It just needs clarification were the line is drawn. We walking uncharted
territory here. FUD is a powerful enemy.


>   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.
>

I put on my vote for confidence in you and "Rhombus-Tech" to protect the
standard. Whatever the weight of that vote may be.


>
> > 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?
>

Err. I would be happy too. I'm not sure were to start though. But lets
figure that out.


>
> _______________________________________________
> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
> Send large attachments to arm-netbook at files.phcomp.co.uk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm-netbook/attachments/20140527/f771580b/attachment.html>