Originally Posted by joerg_rw

Plus the whole device is 100% open, you get all the schematics and links to all the datasheets of the 'free' chips that are used. *), we don't work behind walls.

Originally Posted by joerg_rw

*)what we we possibly will hand out later on only are the Eagle project files to feed the fab with. We won't hand out the "shopping list" with all the commercial contacts. What's also not available are docs about the powervr graphics core, but device works without using that core. We don't have access to any modem firmware sourcecode or sources for other subsystem firmwares.

Originally Posted by Estel

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.

Originally Posted by Estel

I'm starting to think, that creative OpenPandora guys (with all the momentum around software for it, too) are more trustworthy than Neo900, with it's unstable and irresponsible new "leader".

Originally Posted by dos1

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

Originally Posted by dos1

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.

And during each of those I asked what for anybody needs the PCB layout and never received a sensible answer

Originally Posted by dos1

If we're extremely lucky, maybe donors won't be even able to tell the difference from their point of view.

Originally Posted by dos1

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.

Originally Posted by dos1

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.

Originally Posted by Estel

I haven't seen a thing about GDC internal assets before your answer - but, it doesn't mean that it isn't there. Mr. Joerg have (a little irritating, if you ask me) tendency to edit his posts much after anyone could have any reason to scroll back, so it's possible that you saw something that I didn't, just by reading it a little earlier.

If you want to see and example of this is (just as a live sample of how communication problems arise in this very case) visible even in this very thread. My opening post have direct quote of Joerg's answer, and in his single post here, he quotes *the same* post with a little different content. Namely, the "GDC assets" bit is missing from my quote (because it wasn't there, back when he wrote it), but mysteriously appeared many hours later, in the middle of the night

Originally Posted by Estel

Generally, the sole question of "why anyone would want to have schematics of 100% open device) seems strange to me.

Originally Posted by Estel

Thus, I think that dropping any viable method of making Neo900 more widely recognized isn't helping. At least without trying, esp. if it doesn't cost anything (materially)

Originally Posted by Estel

I still see some possible tensions - like, even in the Neo900 Team body, there seem to be different view on "if we should even try to release those project files at all, why anyone need them anyway", as opposed to "lets do everything to release as much as we can, and explain why we can't some things". You know, the inversion of roles - for some - like you - it's natural that if you don't release something in Open project, you explain why. For others (Mr. Joerg, as it seems from posts here) it's the other way around - people should explain why they want it and convince the releasing party.

Originally Posted by wicket

Jörg always has been project leader. The Neo900 project only exists because he envisioned the idea brought together the people to make it possible. AIUI, Nikolaus has always supported this and the only problem is that the the project leader must make the financial relevant decisions which meant that Neo900 UG had to be set up.

Originally Posted by Estel

Which, I guess, answer Joerg's question "Why one need those schematics, at all". Well, if it was discussed 6 or 7 times in GTA times, it speaks itself about people's interest in such files, doesn't it? As for why, answer if painfully simple - for the same very reason we want open sources of software, even if we don't plan to write patches in next year or two. In (unlikely) case that GDC get blown up/disappear/whatever, the same work won't need to be done from scratch.

In the case of someone with appropriate tools and will appearing in few years, even if GDC won't be interested in Neo900 v2, maybe someone else will be. It's easier to base it on something, than on nothing, right? Isn't it one of the reasons, why Neo900 is so heavily based on GTA04?

Originally Posted by dos1

Originally Posted by Estel

I haven't seen a thing about GDC internal assets before your answer - but, it doesn't mean that it isn't there. Mr. Joerg have (a little irritating, if you ask me) tendency to edit his posts much after anyone could have any reason to scroll back, so it's possible that you saw something that I didn't, just by reading it a little earlier.

If you want to see and example of this is (just as a live sample of how communication problems arise in this very case) visible even in this very thread. My opening post have direct quote of Joerg's answer, and in his single post here, he quotes *the same* post with a little different content. Namely, the "GDC assets" bit is missing from my quote (because it wasn't there, back when he wrote it), but mysteriously appeared many hours later, in the middle of the night

I'm sure it was already mentioned few months ago. And sorry, but while it's true that Joerg edits his posts a lot to add something or make them sound better, this particular example is pretty unconvincing, since aside from added sentence at the end which is not really important in this context, quotes from your and Joerg's posts match word to word. And last edit to that post was made a few minutes after it was initially posted.

Also, the "GDC assets part" you claim was missing (but if you look carefully, you can see strange "Also: And no" in your quote, suggesting that your citation just skipped the nested quote...) was actually simply a quote from earlier post. I understand that lengthy posts in thread with almost 2k of them makes it easy to unintentionally miss some details, but you seem to do everything to find an excuse to not to admit that...