Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

After the:
http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...01&postcount=2
...blink of a crisis, all people who - like me - keep thumbs for Neo900 project from the very beginning, were able to sigh with relief, apparently. There might be an uncomfortable need to get a refund and donate to Neo900 project again, but what we won't do for making a 100% open device (as per Neo900 announce post[1]), right?

But, wait a second. As we see from result of my question[2], [3] to Neo900 project leader, with results as per [4], [5] is it - as per this threads title - still fair to call Neo900 a "100% open device"?

I'm pretty sure that promised openness was a major factor for many pre-orderers out there. In Maemo community, many hold the Free software and Free hardware - both Free as in Freedom - in a very high regard. For many of us, Neo900 was meant to fulfill dream of "as free as in gets" (minus things that can't get free software running them,legally, like modem firmware, due to regulations in all countries around the world), real pocket computer/phone combo in our pocket.

Instead - up to now - we're getting very disappointing results in the "openness" department. While dos1 - performing as in promptu spokesman for Neo900, as it seems - is doing whatever he could to communicate with Community, the rest of development is as murky as it gets. We have some behind-the-scenes problems with "who is the project leader/decision making guy", that ends in unprecedented (in community-funded hardware projects) situation of need to refund all pre-orders - something that, usually, mean project becoming dead. Almost three hundreds of pre-orderers will lose on conversion and transfer fees - *TWICE*, if they decide to support project again - and it's basically seen as "sorry for the inconvenience" by (apparently, as we don't know anything for sure, when it comes to Neo900...) current project leader, Joerg Reisenweber. Now, thats "understatement of the year", especially, considering that - from my personal point of view - Joerg's inability to agree on passing leadership to party developing Neo900 hardware (Golden Delicious Computers) is the reason for all this mess. Well, its us - donors - who will pay (and banks who will profit...) for his need of being official leader, not he. No wonder the cheerful approach.

The thing about Neo900 project files was murky from the beginning, too. First called simply "files to feed the fab" in opening post os Neo900 thread, (it got edited, without keeping history change) it was always stated as "maybe". Despite asking in the first days of project, I never got clear answer on why those files should be kept propertiary. The elusive comment I got, was that its due to "wanting to keep Neo900 done in big batches, instead of small parcels". What it mean in practice, is that Neo900 team doesn't want [/b]*you*[/b] being able to, easily, replicate Neo900 in your warehouse, if you happen to have the equipment and source parts. So, no arduino-like approach here, forget it.

Now, when it got specified as Eagle project files, I repeated the question, with very discouraging results, as per links from this very post. Not only the project leader put off the mask and shown his rude "face", as answer to sincere and cultural question but - more importantly - he shown complete lack of respect for and understanding off the Free ideals.

Frankly, we could have seen it coming. When getting "blessing" of Free Software Foundation was considered, Joerg was disdainful when talking about FSF, or Richard Stallman, ad persona. As some of you may remember, the problem with FSF "thumb up" for Neo900, was about FSF dogma, that modem software should be "set in stone", irreplaceable in any circumstance. In their theory, it would ensure, that no carrier/government/anyone will overwrite firmware "over the air". Guys from Neo900 team had a good point - such dogma doesn't guarantee Freedom, as backdoor could be implemented in such firmware at factory level.

Neo900 had a great chance of getting more recognition, by "challenging" - in a civilized way - this FSF dogma, and try to convince FSF guys to change it (which happened in the past, FSF rules aren't set in stone, too). Now, that would be something - project which would catalyze upgrade in FSF rules would get a hell of interest in Free software/hardware circles. If FSF would fail to get convinced - well, it wouldn't hurt trying. Succeeding, on the other hand, would ensure not only benefits mentioned above, but would also double by making Neo900 FSF-approved device.

It could bring pre-orders up from less than 300 to 3000, or who knows how much. Hell, in good circumstances, it could make Neo900 - and it's possible successors - a role model of Free mobile computer/phone. It would surely bring the final price down, making device more accessible to common people, that doesn't sleep on money. Worth trying (especially, for free... As in beer, this time ;) ), wouldn't you say? After all, Neo900 had good technical reasons to back their "claim".

Again - thanks to Joerg, the guy that doesn't get the Free world - concept of trying to convince FSF and get their "blessing", after all, was completely abandoned, without even trying (for real). Again, it's *our* - current or future pre-orderers - that get to pay more for a complete device (compared to one made with FSF thumb-up, in muich larger quantities), not the egocentric "leader" of the project.

If the vector of less openness with every step continue, Neo900 projects, suddenly, become less and less "sexy". Especially, compared to similarly (little less) pricey projects like OpenPandora's Pyra - which seem to have leadership much more sensible to *real* openness.
---

Summing it up, I want *YOUR* input. Does the "Free'nes" of Neo900 matter to you as much as it matters to me? Are you worried by the recent events? Maybe you have some suggestions to Neo900 team? Or, you would just like to show them all the support with their decision, and see my reasoning as BS? All (civilized, filled with arguments) input welcome.

And, as per Poll, given the above problems - do you think that it's fair to call Neo900 "100% open" project, or it seems as only semi-open thing, that want to profit on "100% open" term, catchy in Maemo community?

Disclaimer:
This post is meant as constructive critique. AFAIK, it's first real, well-documented critique and polemic with what Neo900 turns to be, amongst all-around praises and cheers. I did it to share my thoughts/worries/feelings about the project, and to gather other's opinions. Orgasm for brain, food for thoughts.

Please, keep the "people mean well" motto, and respect the others, (myself included) while writing comments, no matter how you love/hate the project.

/Estel

(quotes beneath links, in case posts get edited afterwards, which happened in the past)

[1]
http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...43&postcount=1
[2]
http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...postcount=1874
[3]
http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...postcount=1876
[4]
http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...postcount=1875
[5]
http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...postcount=1877

Re: Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

Wow... Angry?
Just don't order one if you have such an issue with it.

Re: Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

Whilst I respect the right to express an opinion, I do wonder whether that and spoiling for a fight are one and the same.

Is the ensuing damage worthwhile?

Respect to ALL involved, I REALLY mean that.

Re: Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

While "umad" wasn't the kind of civilized discusion I was hoping for, I think that the "just don't order one" is worth answering.

handaxe, the thing below is also answer to your post (thank you for respecting my right right to write constructive critic - sincerely, no irony here. It means something, as for many other people, everyone who writes *any* critique about where Neo900 is heading, seems to be instantly doomed for some good bashing nowadays, as it seems):
---

Well, indeed I do the "don't like something about it, don't buy it" with quite number of other devices - iPads, Androids, Windoze products. The thing is, that I see Neo900 as something more! Or at least seen it. As something worth watching closely, encouraging others to get informed about. Even exchanging letters with National Radio in my country (IT auditions department), trying to convince them to cover it it best air time, as a role model of crowd-funded, FOSS device.

The thing is, that I'm starting to wonder, if I'm doing the right thing to support so much (even if it's *only* my small, humble contribution, negligible as compared to some other people's one) *this* device, given recent events. I think that my critique was fair and well-documented, as said in last post (it lack links to only few mentioned, well-known, early situations, and if you don't trust me on them, you can dig them of yourself from Neo900 thread).

Up to now, the all critique Neo900 got wasn't very "informed" - people complained about things like 325463275324 cores, capacitive screens, and other things totally not related to project boundaries. Now, the "100% open" thing was, IMO, heavy highlighted "promise" in boundaries of the project and - given recent events/answers/attitude, a thing stretching what "100% open" a little too much.

I also think that lack of constructive, civilized critic is hurting project, too. When you get only "hooray", "obi-wan - you're our only hope" kind of feedback, and your patrons keep silent about things that head wrong way, you may get a little "arrogant" in your attitude. With or without quotation marks. If you become too confident, that whatever you do, everyone will just get "hooray!", you may come up with things like (I will exaggerate now, on purpose, but it boils down to the same result):

"Hm, not being an leader doesn't suit me... I invested much time into this project, I need to get proper credits! Lets throw it all upside-down - those guys will just get refund and pay us again anyway, why bother!"

Or, you may get arrogant (even more than usual) in you public answers to honestly interested people - you know, the "pestering" stuff. Or you may tell yourself:

"FSF? Why should we care about those hyppie suckers? We're the bosses here, they suxx anyway!"

Of course, as said, i'm overdrawing the things, but you get the idea. I think that constructive critic may put some people with foots on earth, back again. Or not, which is yet to be seen, and depends on how many people are worried about things I've mentioned too.

After all, it may turn out that I'm the only one seeing it like that. Well, fair enough, then - I don't have monopole for being "always right". I'll accept it, and still, humbly, thanks others for the input and bringing me back on earth with my Openess-strictness ;)

Anyway, I hope that you understand now, why I think that keeping silent about it may be the damaging thing, not the other way around.

Cheers and respect,
/Estel

Re: Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

Just a few things:

• Neo900 project never promised to release the project files (in opposite to complete schematics, which were promised right at the beginning), but this is a considered possibility. It's still yet to evaluate if it's feasible or even wanted by all parties involved (because it could mean for instance releasing some internal GDC assets), and while odds are high that it might happen, we simply won't promise it until we're sure that it will happen. Still, it's worth noting that, as far as I remember, what we already promised is already more than Openmoko ever did.
• you're using a quite definitive tone like "pre-orderers will lose", while we're still working on evaluating some ideas that could fix this problem. Please, give us some time.
• while you're right that I started my "PR work" pretty much in promptu, it has changed recently and I've been actually in the center of discussions that led to Nikolaus' announcement. That was me who was exchanging mails with him, not Joerg. Also, my reporting here is not based on "I was talking with Joerg on priv IRC chat and he told me that..." anymore. I've already given some pretty detailed information about what happened (and I truly and sincerely believe that what I skipped are just not important details that don't add anything to the story), Joerg added some comments as well and everything matched exactly with what I saw happening. But you seem to assume that there's still something hidden behind it...
• I know it's not a great argument against the critique, but calling someone responsible for most of Openmoko's openness "the guy that doesn't get the Free world" seems to me a bit off :P

Feel free to ask for some more details, but be prepared to hear what already has been told before. Maybe there is something that we missed and didn't tell anyone, but at least from my POV this project is really amazingly transparent and I suppose this is one of the most important things that made it so successful in this community - so obviously we wouldn't want to lose or even risk that. All this refunds hassle is already some kind of shame for us, as its directly related to our mistakes from the past and we're really sorry for that - we worked hard past months to avoid that, and at some moments even celebrated success, but finally it turned out that we failed.

Re: Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

Hmm...
Well ...I know I've had my moments
I must admit that 1stly I hold no animosity to any (currently :D).
Rather.... high regard and admiration for all fellow "maemo-ites"... Take their advices seriously and value their opinions and stances regardless of their position.

I can understand the purpose of withholding temporarily (even for good enough reason... permanently) details, specs and the like to prevent the undermining of the initial intent of producing the device.
It appears to be a catch 22.

1- Release the info.... be true to the philosophy of openness and a corp comes takes the hard work of others....says "thank you"...and makes it's own closed or open or partial version....subverting the hard work and intent to play by the rules against a world that states "play by the rules" but doesn't....aaaallllllll before it is even ready to be assembled let alone ready to ship. That would for sure collapse any team, organization, micro-company, or collaboration and would simply result in an unwatchable implosion that would be comparable to something in the latest michael bay movie :D

2-Don't release the info...welll...that isn't very FOSS-y is it...but it does mean survival (though unlikely long-term survival) ....as much as I hate to say it.

3-The parties involved unequivocally ...unreservedly guarantee that it will be released (or at least in part or parts) to the public at some point...or even totally released ....for example...say on the heels of the neo900 version 2 release (wouldn't that be grand :)). Thereby effectively making the work uncompromisable by adhering to (very important) philosophy..which means it wouldn't be taken advantage of prematurely...releasing details prematurely would most certainly stall development on said future enhancements/research/devices since potential revenue generated from sales (of the neo900 now) which would fuel further development wouldn't be displaced by "the guy in his garage making knock-offs, nor the malcontent corp" doing the same on a grander scale. It would be a matter of trust...that the info would be released and that eventually it would be considered open....so the tinkerer in his shop can mess with the device at that point...try something different or better...and be just a (device generation) step behind current development and release.That encourages incentive to produce future compelling cutting edge products too...essentially encouraging healthy competition. Everyone wins.

I may not like how the world works...to change it means playing one of 3 games.

1-Play the Righteous game....by the rules..release everything...and I bet it all collapses.

2-Play the wrong game and release nothing or not enough and it won't have anything but a sour aftertaste of what could have been

3-Play the long game...may not make friends doing it immediately...but hold the cards close to the chest until it's time to call...THEN release the material....
that may mean survival...a legacy...a device that is open...the guarantee of future enhancements/devices ....and the adhering to very important philosophy....It's a win all around....no loss for any.

Personally....I favour the long game...in it to win it.

In this case the means justify the ends

-endsormeans

Re: Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

The argument about GDC assets its, of course, a reasonable one. I don't get why it was so hard to tell it earlier (it isn't critique on your side, you wasn't the one answering me). I just hope that whatever happen about those project files, we will get detailed answer on why this or that decision was made, not something along the line of (in tone of previous Project Leader's answers) "we decided that we want it that way, period, stop pestering, what you don't understand, 'stop' or 'pestering'?".

You know, like "releasing Eagle project files would mean releasing Golden Delicious Computers internal asset about XYZ, which isn't important only for Neo900, and they can't afford to lose having it proprietary". Of course, I understand that such answer can't be given right now.

I think that Community could accept such things, if it would be served detailed and honest (no coating in marketing-like words), just like it did with GSM modem (impossibility to have it running 100% open, due to blocker legal reasons we're all aware of). I think it's part of the "openess in communication" that sulu asked for, in the main thread.

Still, there remains a question if calling it "100% open", instead of "as open as viable from GDC business point of view" is fair, but it's more acceptable, if people carrying about FOSS'ness are treated with respect, by giving civilized and honest answers (again, not point aimed at you, as you may presume).

Roger that - I based "definite tone" on all (up to now) comments from Neo900 team, denying possibility to drop refunds (like impossibility to direct refunds to other entity, or change target of credit card's refunds). If Team Neo900 sees any real opportunity for avoiding/circumventing that refund thing (disastrous, in my opinion), I stand corrected (and happy penguin, too).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that you was referring to "talking with joerg and hearing that..." just few days ago, when the "crisis" begins :P It may be just me being too slow to catch up the buzzling progress (changes), though.

In any matter, my in promptu comment wasn't mean to sneaky stick a needle, in any matter. Honestly, I think that you're doing *AWESOME* job as a spokesman for Neo900 - both early in the project and now (guess who I wanted to forward Polish Radio to, if they would get convinced to cover Neo900 in their short prime-time audition ;) ). If we're on the constructive critique topic, I think that, for "personality reasons", Neo900 would gain much (and save on some communication mishaps), if Joerg would left talking with people to you, altogether :P

Acknowledged and even agreed, to some extent. It was about Project Leader's sum of reactions to Free Software Foundation, Mr. Stallman (with all due respect, I think that Mr. Joerg still have much to achieve in Open World, before even considering speaking about FSF/Stallman in such a "bit off" way, as he did in many occasions...), and overall, the answers to concerns about openness ("pestering", again).

As a way of dully noting, you might have noticed, that I started to standardize calling him as "Project Leader", and from now on, it will be the only way I'm going to do it (apart from nick, or my sentences could get quite repetitive :P).

Glad to hear that you (as in Team Neo900) value it so much. As for questions, well, the one that I had was if - after writing the "modem problem article" - Neo900 is going to start some (preferably, public) professional discussion with FSF about their dogma (for reasons mentioned in my opening post, here).

But, I'm not sure if project files wouldn't be another requirement for FSF blessing (correct me?), so it may be a null point, anyway... OTOH, even without "full blessing", convincing them to change their "modem firmware" dogma would still be something to help Neo900 gaining recognition :)
---

I really hope that it is the kind of critique that helps to improve project, not hinder it. As you may see, I'm quite enthusiastic about it (even if a little torn-between/discouraged by latest things).

/Estel

Re: Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

Do you have any example from the past where *all you got* was a "stop pestering" response? I don't mean "stop pestering" alone, it happens sometimes, but if I haven't missed anything it was always related to something like "but your questions were already answered".

I agree and I do all my best to always provide such explanations - and mostly because I'm also interested in decisions like that and reasoning behind them, I would surely push Joerg and Nikolaus to answer. I would, in case something like that happened - but so far they were the ones always reasoning their stuff properly without me even asking, so I don't have anything to complain about yet :)

But I'm pretty sure that what I said above (about GDC internal assets) was actually repeated from what I saw earlier stated publicly.

There are various definitions of Open Hardware. "100% open" could mean "you can use it without single line of non-open software"; it could mean also "we provide you schematics and datasheets", it could mean also "we provide you complete kit with everything necessary to start production of your own clone".

From my perspective, looks like Neo900 will be somewhere between the last two. The still open question is - where exactly.

Our denies were related to the situation where we simply ask preorderers if we can transfer their orders to Neo900 UG. That was not possible, so technically orders had to be cancelled - but now it opens the possibility for direct transfer of the refunds to the UG and it should be easily possible with non-CC orders. We're also pondering about solutions for people who paid with CC.

This is the difference in accounting - "order transfer" vs. "refund". If we're extremely lucky, maybe donors won't be even able to tell the difference from their point of view.

It changed recently, so it could be simply out-of-date. But I don't think it could be "few days ago". Or even if it could, the fact is that right now I feel much more confident about everything I say without consultation than, say, month ago (but that doesn't mean that I wasn't confident back then of course ;))

Possibly - Joerg is not greatest and best in communication skills, that's for sure - but I think having him active here brings more benefits than drawbacks anyway.

Well, it's not our objective to convince FSF on anything. They themselves are pretty aware that in case of hardware, the line of what's acceptable for them and what's not in openness is pretty arbitrary. I never seen FSF requiring any "project files" for hardware available to get their blessing; they are mostly interested in software that runs on blessed hardware, and to set a limit on "what's still a software, and what's already a hardware" (which is very tricky to answer properly) they ensure their "non-replacable firmware" rule.

Our objective is to show, that our design does not need to follow that rule in order to respect freedom and privacy of the user.

Sure ;) Even if positive attitude seems to be dominating, I can see that there indeed is some kind of tension, or doubt, in the community thanks to - let's say it - our recent f*ck ups, and I perfectly understand that. So I try to make it all clear as much as I can, and to learn something from past mistakes.

Re: Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

welcome to sequel number 7 of the "is it really open when you don't publish the 10 layers of PCB and the specs of the FR4 and the exact type of Galden and the thermal profiles used in the reflow soldering and the contract details for the PCB manufacturing and the soldering and the shipping?" debate. We had a 6 of them (or maybe I dropped a few while counting) on GTA02 and GTA04 already. And during each of those I asked what for anybody needs the PCB layout and never received a sensible answer apart from "because otherwise it's not open" - which is maybe true in the semantics definition continuum of the one who gave that answer, but for sure nowhere written into stone.
And Mr Estel is insulting and trolling as usual. To prove this: I clearly stated about GDC's assets in my post Estel quoted when posting his first question. I answered his first question pointing at the fact that the answer been prior to the question,
which made him ask more offensively. So I asked to "stop pestering"
Now Estel answers Dos1 here with
All said. Estel has a record to troll and badmouth and spread lies about people (the lies are always nicely hidden in implied assumptions resulting in statements like "why it was so hard to tell it earlier". or "has a bad history of XXX" or whatever). Sorry when my answers are not as friendly as for average conversation with arbitrary other users.
On a sidenote: we still reserve the right to not deliver rationale for every single decision we make inside Neo900 team. And particularly not for decisions-not-yet-made.

[edit]
That's all up to you. I really don't care if you like that approach or not. And I don't feel obliged to defend it. Get it or leave it, that's the offer. We're not interested in your bickering based on your expectations and your belief in being entitled to get those expectations fulfilled by us. For (non-existent) definition of the meaning of "100% open device" refer to GTA04 ML please, in several other of the 7 sequels.

[edit2] Now if it needs anything more to prove a bonehead who insists in badmouthing and spreading poison despite being told about the true situation in all loving epic verbosity, several times, then I don't know.
The only thing that's murky here is your mindset.
/j

Re: Is it fair to call Neo900 "100% open device"?
 

I don't think that "Eagle project files" are necessary to be open. Look at source files for RHEL, yes they're open, but not divided to patches, so you or any company(it was Oracle iirc) can't use their work to create competing distribution. Same is here, the project is open(to the end-user), but the company(GDC) must defend their work. And I'm pretty sure that, if you(Estel), so much need those project files, you can start negotiations with GDC, and get those under some sort of NDA, or something similar, if you're not planning to compete with GDC business.