I just thought I'd make a poke about this.
Been a bit busy lately to contribute to the liberating chip or the standards thread, but will be getting back on those soon.
No one has really mentioned conflict-free minerals, or does so often in the libre community. It's kinda like adding just one other complication to an already mess-y problem, but I'm interested to know more about the details and problems involved with paying attention to the actual mineral sourcing.
I can imagine many OEM's don't publish or even pay attention to where they get minerals from, so I imagine the potential parts list dwindles beyond reason at simply limiting one's self to OEM's that at least list their mineral sources, much less then actually trying to them limit it based on the fairly subjective "conflict-free" qualification.
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Jean Flamelle eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
I just thought I'd make a poke about this.
good idea.
Been a bit busy lately to contribute to the liberating chip or the standards thread, but will be getting back on those soon.
great. knock yourself out :)
No one has really mentioned conflict-free minerals, or does so often in the libre community. It's kinda like adding just one other complication to an already mess-y problem, but I'm interested to know more about the details and problems involved with paying attention to the actual mineral sourcing.
correct. libre means software... which is another area of highly specialist ethical expertise (the application of ethics to software).
conflict minerals is the application of specialist ethical expertise to the sourcing of materials.
I can imagine many OEM's don't publish or even pay attention to where they get minerals from, so I imagine the potential parts list dwindles beyond reason at simply limiting one's self to OEM's that at least list their mineral sources, much less then actually trying to them limit it based on the fairly subjective "conflict-free" qualification.
fairphones does.... but they then screwed up by not bothering with the ethical issues of ensuring that the operating system was actually... legal to distribute. so all the Fairphone 1 products they designed are basically a ticking landfill timebomb.... ENTIRELY DEFEATING the whole fucking point of the exercise.
they still have not resolved the use of the GPL-violating Mediatek OS distributed with that phone, meaning that they have LOST ALL RIGHTS TO DISTRIBUTE PRODUCT - including the Fairphone 2 and all future products.
the way that they can fix that is to ask every single contributor to u-boot and the linux kernel for their distribution rights back, but first obtain the full GPLv2 source to that Mediatek OS.
alcatel did this (alcatel is one of the main sources of mediatek GPLv2 compliant source code).
Fairphones did not.
so.
what do you think of that, jean? should we go out and buy Fairphone products?
l.
2017-08-11 8:03 GMT+02:00 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Jean Flamelle eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
I can imagine many OEM's don't publish or even pay attention to where they get minerals from, so I imagine the potential parts list dwindles beyond reason at simply limiting one's self to OEM's that at least list their mineral sources, much less then actually trying to them limit it based on the fairly subjective "conflict-free" qualification.
fairphones does.... but they then screwed up by not bothering with the ethical issues of ensuring that the operating system was actually... legal to distribute. so all the Fairphone 1 products they designed are basically a ticking landfill timebomb.... ENTIRELY DEFEATING the whole fucking point of the exercise.
they still have not resolved the use of the GPL-violating Mediatek OS distributed with that phone, meaning that they have LOST ALL RIGHTS TO DISTRIBUTE PRODUCT - including the Fairphone 2 and all future products.
True and the FP1 has been officially been discontinued from support. FP2 is a Qualcomm device.
the way that they can fix that is to ask every single contributor to u-boot and the linux kernel for their distribution rights back, but first obtain the full GPLv2 source to that Mediatek OS.
alcatel did this (alcatel is one of the main sources of mediatek GPLv2 compliant source code).
Fairphones did not.
They've tried to do better with FP2. But still they did not fully grasp the implications.
so.
what do you think of that, jean? should we go out and buy Fairphone products?
Well, They've focused on one side of the equation, upstream. We've focused on the to other, downstream.
So in the end we need both approaches.
At least they've raised some awareness and show the world that a viable business can be founded with focus on ethical hardware resources.
The software part remained as shitty as the rest. Let us show the world that can be done as well!
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 7:50 AM, mike.valk@gmail.com mike.valk@gmail.com wrote:
they still have not resolved the use of the GPL-violating Mediatek OS distributed with that phone, meaning that they have LOST ALL RIGHTS TO DISTRIBUTE PRODUCT - including the Fairphone 2 and all future products.
True and the FP1 has been officially been discontinued from support. FP2 is a Qualcomm device.
ceasing sale of one criminally-infringing product does not grant the right to sell another. once rights are lost they may NOT be re-established without the consent of ALL copyright parties.
thus sadly they no longer have the right to distribute the FP2. or future products. if they continue to do so they will be operating as an illegal criminal cartel (an Organised Crime Syndicate) *not* a Cooperative.
they can fix that by obtaining that Mediatek source code.
l.
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:15:26 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
thus sadly they no longer have the right to distribute the FP2. or future products. if they continue to do so they will be operating as an illegal criminal cartel (an Organised Crime Syndicate) *not* a Cooperative.
Does this refer to their "US Legal rights" to distribute their products or that we should not give them the right to distribute their products to us by virtue of a purchase?
Thanks, David
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:45 PM, doark@mail.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:15:26 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
thus sadly they no longer have the right to distribute the FP2. or future products. if they continue to do so they will be operating as an illegal criminal cartel (an Organised Crime Syndicate) *not* a Cooperative.
Does this refer to their "US Legal rights" to distribute their products or that we should not give them the right to distribute their products to us by virtue of a purchase?
it's copyright law, plain and simple. if you violate the GPLv2 you lose all distribution rights. if you then *continue* to distribute without those rights, you are in criminal infringement of copyright law. if a *company* continues to do that, the company is breaking the law. if a company is breaking the law, it is no longer a company, it is a criminal cartel. it's a simple chain. many people have pointed out however a flaw in this logic, that copyright is a civil offense not a criminal offense.
l.
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 01:15:06AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
many people have pointed out however a flaw in this logic, that copyright is a civil offense not a criminal offense.
Actually I’m not so sure depending on the jurisdiction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Copyright_Law_in_the_United_States
2017-09-17 19:47 GMT+02:00 pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de:
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 01:15:06AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
many people have pointed out however a flaw in this logic, that copyright is a civil offense not a criminal offense.
Actually I’m not so sure depending on the jurisdiction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Copyright_Law_in_the_United_States
It depends on the location. Copyright is not an international law.
It depends on the location. Copyright is not an international law.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
Thank god its not an international law, its bad enough we have copyright in any part of the world...
I just think 30 years is more than enough for a copyright to last matter of fact, 15 years for software and 30 for books, is more than sufficient.
Given how quickly things become obsolete regarding software...
arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
-
doark＠mail.com -
Jean Flamelle -
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton -
mike.valk＠gmail.com -
pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) -
zap