Re: [libreplanet-discuss] [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

Thank you, Ali. I really appreciate you taking the time to answer my
call and share your opinion on the libreplanet-discuss mailing list.

On 26.08.2016 16:28, Ali Razeen wrote:
> If this is true in the libre hardware world,

I follow your logic, but I'm not sure there is an exact analogy libre
software <-> libre hardware.

> then at the moment, EOMA68 is libre hardware right from the beginning.

I can identify several times used in this sentence and the one below: T1
is the inception (beginning) of the project. T2 is the present day
(now). T3 is the earliest shipping time of the hardware to the backers.

It is my understanding that the sequence is T1 < T2 < T3 and not T2 < T3
= T1.

> If they release the hardware to their backers like myself, but do not provide the PCB design sources, *then* we can say they are not libre hardware.

If at T3 the hardware ships with free PCB design sources, then at T3
we'll have proof and thus be able to say EOMA68 *is* libre hardware (by
today's standards = at board level, not necessarily at chip level).

At T2 based on the proof that the laptop case CAD files have been made
available under GPLv3+ at some point in the interval [T1, T2) we are
only able to say EOMA68 has the laptop case as libre hardware, but we
can't say EOMA68 is libre hardware, because at T2 we don't have proof
that the EOMA68 computer itself (EOMA68-A20) is libre hardware (at board
level).

But, if at T2 we have the EOMA68 project's guarantee (I don't think we
have that guarantee stated, at least not on the campaign's page) that at
T3 EOMA68 computer will ship to the backers with free PCB design
sources, then at T2 the *EOMA68 project* can say that at T3 the EOMA68
will be libre hardware (they have the power to do know that, because
they have designed the board and it's their decision if and when to
release the design sources). And at T2 *we* can say (like PaulK said)
that the EOMA68 "may be" libre hardware in the future or, based on the
track record of the project leaders with the laptop case CAD files under
GPLv3+, that it's *probably* going/*likely* to be libre hardware at T3.

From T1 to T2 and continuing until T3, neither the EOMA68 project can
say their hardware *is* libre hardware, nor we can say it *is* libre
hardware. Instead, they can say that only the laptop case *is* libre
hardware.

Now, let's assume that the EOMA68 project has a change of heart and
decides to release the free PCB design sources at least to its
campaign's backers at T2, and not wait until T3. Then at T2/now we are
able to say that the EOMA68 hardware *is* libre hardware.

But I fail to see how sending the free PCB design sources to the backers
at T2 and not wait until T3 will modify/reflect in the statement quoted
many times here that "[EOMA68 hardware] is libre hardware right from the
beginning".

Also, I don't see any reason why this statement refers to T1, since at
T2 (and T2 > T1) we don't have any proof that EOMA68 hardware is libre
hardware. If at T2 not even the backers don't have the free PCB design
sources, I wouldn't consider true to even state that "[EOMA68 hardware]
is libre hardware *now*", yet alone essentially stating that "[EOMA68
hardware] is libre hardware since T1".

I hope this makes sense for everyone.

On 26.08.2016 19:27, Ali Razeen wrote:
> I follow your argument but to make sure we’re on the same page, let me try to rephrase it in my own words so that you can agree or disagree. I believe you claim that we cannot say that the EOMA68 is “libre hardware from the beginning” because we have no proof that it has indeed been libre hardware since the very beginning of the EOMA68 project (which would be T1, in your email). Perhaps we can claim that “EOMA68 is libre hardware from the time the hardware is shipped to its backers” when they eventually release their PCB designs, or maybe we can claim “EOMA68 is libre hardware today” (which would be T2) if they released the PCB today. But even if they did release it today, we cannot claim that “EOMA68 is libre hardware from the beginning”.
>
> Have I understood you correctly?

I think so.

tct has been lumping together criticism of Think Penguin's catalog with his criticism of the EOMA68 campaign. I can't say I know why he is doing this.