[Arm-netbook] firefly 3399 all source software disclosed?

[ronwirring at Safe-mail.net]

In a previous post, lkcl wrote the firefly rk3399 staff has the pcb cad files and he had no objection about firefly rejecting, which they have done towards me, to email the cad files.
About lkcl's crowd funding, the mali gpu source code is not available.  Lkcl can make the mali gpu source code not available, because he makes a reservation in the text in his ad. 
About the pcb cad files, lkcl has decided they will not be available until lkcl decides to provide them. I disagree on the decision. Being open source I find it implicit that all data will be provided immediately. Because lkcl has made a reservation in his ad about the cad files in question he can make that choice.

In the firefly rk3399' ad it says, the hardware is open source. The ad is misleading and deceptive.
I have found no reservations about the mali gpu source code or the pcb cad files. Firefly can probably not email the mali gpu source code, because they do not have it. They can email the pcb cad files because they have them. 
That is why I am going to demand both the mali gpu source code and the pcb cad files from firefly. If firefly does not provide the data in question, then I will file a complaint to kickstarter. It is unacceptable calling something open source, if it is not all open source.
Of cource I will not mention lkcl in any form. 





-------- Original Message --------
From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net>
Apparently from: arm-netbook-bounces at lists.phcomp.co.uk
To: Eco-Conscious Computing <arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Arm-netbook] firefly 3399 all source software disclosed?
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 03:19:57 +0100

> ---
> crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:12 PM, David Niklas <doark at mail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 May 2017 05:45:36 +0100
> > Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote:
> >> ---
> >> crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 10:10 PM, zap <zapper at openmailbox.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 05/07/2017 04:29 PM, ronwirring at Safe-mail.net wrote:
> >> >> All software for the mali-t860 is open source?
> >>
> >>  none.  MALI is proprietary.
> >
> > I'm confused.
> > Luke, if you plan on making an RK3399 into an eoma project how can you
> > get RYF status if the mali GPU is closed source?
> 
>  this was discussed a year ago or so.  same process as for the EOMA68-A20
> 
> > For that matter, how can you get RYF cert. for your current eoma68
> > project?
> 
>  by leaving out the proprietary crap, simple as that.  see below.
> 
> > Unless I'm mistaken and it uses a different GPU?
> 
>  it is actually a different GPU but that does not change the
> assessment process carried out by the FSF.
> 
> > Or you just leave the HW crippled?
> 
>  if the FSF considered the device to be "crippled" by it not having
> the 3D engine running, such that there was a genuine risk that people
> would actively seek out the installation of proprietary software.
> 
>  in the case of e.g. a proprietary on-board WIFI device that *would*
> constitute a genuine risk of people *actively* seeking out proprietary
> firmware, and consequently the FSF quite naturally refuses to certify
> devices that contain non-removable proprietary on-board WIFI chips.
> 
>  however in this case it actually turns out that if you use the
> proprietary 3D GPU for the tasks that i suspect you *believe* will
> quotes accelerate quotes certain operations (such as X11), the MALI
> embedded GPU (or its associated proprietary software - we can't
> actually tell which because we DON'T HAVE THE DAMN SOURCE) is so
> piss-poor at its job that it actually SLOWS DOWN CERTAIN OPERATIONS of
> X11.
> 
> given that 2D acceleration is already covered by fbturbo, and works
> really well *and is entirely libre software*, the *need* for the 3D
> engine just for basic Small-Office / Home-Office and day-to-day usage
> is NOT A CONCERN.
> 
>  so does that make it clear that the evaluation process (which was
> described a year ago) is not just a hard-and-fixed process?
> 
> now, if on the other hand this was a dedicated Games Console product,
> *that would be an entirely different matter*.  applying for RYF
> Certification on a 3D Games Console product which has a 3D GPU which
> *only works with proprietary software* would probably constitute too
> much of a risk that buyers *WOULD* in fact go out of their way to
> download the proprietary drivers.
> 
> but this design *isn't being sold as a 3D Games Console*, is it?
> 
> does that help clarify?
> 
> l.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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