<html><head></head><body>A proper clone to me would <br>
1. Be up to standard hardware wise<br>
2. Run the same software as the Libre Tea/Numero Uno variants (or a perhaps a Chinese distro like Deep in) but hopefully not some pirated windows IoT <br>
<br>
For 1. I think just having a proper documentation out there in Chinese that is relatively short that's basically "quick guide to eoma68 compliance for OEMs" would save a lot of headaches with exploding eoma68 cards<br>
For 2. I think it should be clear from you these things run gnu/linux in the documentation. <br>
Just a few thoughts on the matter. <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On January 10, 2017 1:22:45 PM GMT+03:00, Alain Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:47:27PM +0300, Allan Mwenda wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> Its not really a problem, since the funds are basically from strong<br /> arming manufacturers with "royalties" and EOMA68 so far has been an<br /> ethical project. Indeed a logo is a brilliant idea, and use of it only<br /></blockquote><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> Indeed a logo is a brilliant idea, and use of it only<br /> by certified products would be excellent.<br /></blockquote><br />OK: anyone know of an artist type who could come up with a few ideas ?<br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> I think also you should be<br /> prepared for Chinese clones, they'll definitely happen, the question is<br /> whether you'll make it easy for them to be proper ones.<br /></blockquote><br />Hmmm: I suspect that we are thinking about Chinese clones (Cc) from just one point of view.<br /><br />Ours (well, mine at least) is: do they conform to the various licences and provide<br />source as required under the GPL, etc ?<br /><br />There are much more important considerations: do the Cc conform to the<br />electrical/... specs ? If they do not then there might be a risk to human life.<br />Consider one that draws too much power or over heats and thus causes a fire. We<br />have all seen footage of exploding 'phone chargers. Less dramatic problems could<br />damage consumer equipment.<br /><br />If the Ccs decide that they like EOMA68 and flood the market with sub standard<br />kit then the good name of EOMA68 could become tarnished. Once Joe Public<br />perception becomes ''EOMA68 == crap/dangerous'' then it becomes dead or niche.<br /><br />Thus: certification is good and a logo/trademark would help the various consumer<br />protection bodies around the world to help protect the public -- and so,<br />vicariously, us.<br /><br />We want to make it easy/cheap for the good guys while making it clear who the<br />bad Ccs are.<br /><br /><br /><br />I am reminded of the firefox/iceweasle spat:<br /><br /><a href="https://lwn.net/Articles/676799">https://lwn.net/Articles/676799</a>/<br /><br /><a href="https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/policy">https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/policy</a>/<br /></pre></blockquote></div><br>
-- <br>
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.</body></html>